CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times
# 194 Bernard F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us
Wisdom from our “Secular Pope”
Vladimir Putin’s recent assertion that U.S. plans for anti-missile defenses in Poland resemble Russia’s 1962 installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba may strike us as a contentious or even silly comparison. But his remarks remind us of the turning point the world arrived at in October 1962—just 45 years ago this month.
For those of us old enough to remember, the Cuban Missile Crisis was one of those events that leave an indelible image of exactly what we were doing at the time.
My own most vivid memory is of standing with a Jesuit teacher and three classmates during lunch recess on the day US ships blockaded the arrival of Russians ships into Cuba. The deep dread I felt at that moment, as we waited for news of the outcome, had no precedent in my young life. To tell the truth, I have not felt such profound fear anytime since that day.
For at that moment, while we hoped there would soon be media reports of Russian ships turning back, we could not block out the alternative prospect: a showdown provoking a nuclear attack that would engulf us without any warning, let alone a media report. We stood there, huddled, literally preparing for the next moment to be our last
Looking back, it seems clear now that the Cuban missile Crisis was yet another chink in the armor of complacency that had protected Americans in the post-World War II period. First Sputnik went up in 1957, then the U2 spy plane crisis broke in 1960, then the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, then the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and finally the JFK assassination in 1963. By then, the postwar “normalcy” was shattered and a new, infinitely more troubling era began.
Of course, the potential for such trouble dated from the first atomic bomb in 1945, but until the Cuban missile crisis Americans had managed to domesticate the nuclear threat with air raid drills and fallout shelters and make-believe survival scenarios. But from 1962 onward, the truly horrifying threat of mutual annihilation was in our faces.
The Church fathers who gathered for Vatican Council II that same October 1962 could not fail to take notice. Perhaps they would have included a clear statement about nuclear weapons in the council documents anyway, but the Cuban Missile Crisis inspired them to take a hard line.
In the sixteen documents produced by Vatican II, nuclear weapons became the sole object of outright condemnation. Henceforth the Catholic Church was on record: Catholic teaching disapproves not only of nuclear war, but also of the threat to use nuclear weapons, and even the decision to build and maintain nuclear arsenals.
In a word, while the Cuban Missile Crisis was a great diplomatic and strategic victory for the United States, it put US nuclear strategic policy on a collision course with Catholic Church teaching.
To this day, the US remains the only country which has committed all the “nuclear sins”: used nuclear weapons, continued to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, and continued to include the threat of their use—even their “first use”—in its national policy. Thus nuclear weapons have remained a constant problem for the last 45 years not only from the point of view of security but also from the point of view of morality.
Of course with the end of the Cold War, our concerns have shifted from deterring the Soviet Union to containing the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the globe. So now we worry less about superpowers than we do about countries like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran gaining nuclear weapons. The Pandora’s Box that opened in 1945 continues to generate new problems as old ones slip away.
Ours is a time desperate for cool heads and clear vision, and one man who offers both is Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1997, and winner (with the IAEA) of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.
Had the US listened to ElBaradei in March 2003 when he told the U.N. Security Council that his investigations showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, we would not be at war in Iraq today. And now he’s the only public figure communicating with both the Iranians and the Americans to prevent another nuclear showdown.
The New York Times recently referred to him as a “secular pope,” which TV interviewer Charlie Rose suggested meant “making sure that people don't kill each other.” (The interview transcript is at http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/africa/01rose-elb.php?page=5). Hearing this, ElBaradei acknowledged that, like the Pope, he must rely less on political power and more on moral authority:
"Secular pope" means I have to remind people of the basic principles they subscribe to. You know, I have to remind the weapons states that they committed themselves to move to nuclear disarmament. I have to remind everybody that they committed to resolve issues through peaceful means. I have to remind people that there is an inspection process at work, so we don't go and bomb…
ElBaradei hopes that in his lifetime he will see nuclear weapons become a historical taboo like genocide and slavery. But this man is experienced and wise enough to know that, more than 60 years after Hiroshima and 45 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have still not come to terms with the basic moral dilemma of nuclear weapons:
We still continue to live in a world where people see that having nuclear weapons is a means of power, of prestige and of a shield. If you really want to protect yourself, you know, you should have nuclear weapons.
The whole system, the so-called arms-control system, is based on those who do not have weapons should not have weapons, but the weapons states should move into nuclear disarmament…But as long as we continue to say, "well, nuclear weapons are very important for our security, but you cannot have it," that system is not sustainable in the long run.
So I think the U.S., Russia, everybody, all the weapons states, will have much stronger moral authority if they show -- if they say, "We are moving into that direction. We don't need to rely on nuclear weapons."
ElBaradei is absolutely right to place the moral burden on the Weapons States. For they are the founders and sustainers of a double standard that hypocritically reserves the supposed “benefits” of nuclear weapons to themselves while denying them to others—and even threatening war on those who seek them. The envy and resentment this creates is, all by itself, a grave obstacle to global peace. And no one can remove that obstacle but the Weapons States who invented it.
So rather than arguing about anti-nuke defenses in Poland, perhaps leaders like Messrs. Putin and Bush could move past the confrontations that so terrified us in October 1962 and begin to talk about setting a moral example by proposing a future where NO ONE has or needs nuclear weapons.
When that day comes, both our secular pope and the last four Catholic Popes will finally see their moral wisdom honored.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2007
Send Your Comments and Questions to
Dr. Swain’s opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.
Bernie Swain has devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US, Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer, teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.
His writings include Liberating Leadership (Harper & Row, 1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot, Harvard Theological Review, and Liturgy.
A lifelong layperson, he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:
http://www.CrossCurrents.us
CrossCurrents
Is a weekly subscription service for parish websites. Individual Subscriptions are also available.
For Information, contact bfswain@juno.com or call 617-282-0183