The slaughter of man and the death of villages are certainly not new to the history of mankind. Yet the passionate desire for true peace has never died in men’s hearts. The tension created by the desire for peace and the realities of war has been brought into sharp focus by the current conflict in Viet Nam. But as Pope Paul reminded us in his encyclical two weeks ago, this war is just one of many tragedies which severely threaten the peace and stability of the human family. “For instance,” he stated, “there are the increasing race for nuclear weapons, the unscrupulous efforts for the expansion of one’s nation, the excessive glorification of one’s race, the obsession for revolution, the segregations enforced on citizens, the iniquitous plotting, the murder of the innocent.” 1. Five Questions

The Church cannot remain silent in the face of these grave disorders. True peace will not be brought about solely by military victory; it will not be achieved by maintaining a balance of power between enemies. Reflecting the thinking of Pope John XXIII as expressed in Peace on Earth, the Second Vatican Council has stated very clearly that, “peace results from the harmony built into human society by its Divine Founder, and actualized by men as they thirst after ever greater justice.” All action and all talk about peace will be irrelevant unless it is cast in a moral context.

The Church then, as the living voice of Christ must speak out. It must give an effective witness to the gospel message which provides a sure framework for universal brotherhood. This must be based on mutual respect and love so essential to the establishment of peace. For this reason, an American Catholic who has lost his moral perspective on war can hardly be considered a true Christian patriot.

As the great debate on war and peace gathers momentum, certain urgent questions demand that we respond:

1. What are the demands of true patriotism?

2. Is it possible to speak of a “just war” today as we did in the past? 3. On a broader level, should nations try to maintain peace by a “balance of terror”? 4. Does universal disarmament (all sides) differ morally from unilateral disarmament (one side)? 5. What are our obligations in contributing toward a genuinely moral consensus regarding American involvement in Viet Nam? 2. Who Is The Patriot? The well being of every nation depends on the patriotism of its citizens. The American Catholic - citizen, soldier, pacifist - has held an honorable place in our country’s history, side by side with those of other faiths. The

bishops of Vatican II, however, clearly point out that there is a significant difference between true patriotism which is “living for God and Christ by following the honorable customs of one’s own nation” and false patriotism which stems from “a narrowing of mind....racial prejudice and bitter nationalism.” True patriotism, in other words, does not end at a nation’s borders. That American is truly patriotic who, while devoting himself to the legitimate needs and concerns of his country, also seeks “the welfare of the whole human family...a universal love for mankind.” As Pope John stated in his last encyclical, Peace on Earth: “Individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests, and develop in isolation from the rest.” This is not to say, of course, that a country cannot defend itself. While making it clear that all means short of force must first be employed, the Council restates the traditional teaching of the Church regarding the right of self defense: “As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, government cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense...” Moreover, the Council Fathers commend those in the military forces who serve as “agents of security and freedom on behalf of their people” as long as they fulfill this role properly.

In the light of our duty to examine the moral positions of our country, another question remains: that of the right of a conscientious objector. The Church, after a brief warning that peace cannot exist “unless personal values are safeguarded” states clearly:

“It seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who (for reasons of conscience) refuse to bear arms, provided however, that they accept some other form of service to the human community.” 3. Limits And Illusions

If men are to remain human, there must be definite limits to the conduct of any war. The Council clearly defines these limits:

1. “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits univocal and unhesitating condemnation.” 2. “Those actions designed for the methodical extermination of an entire people, nation or ethnic minority must be vehemently condemned as horrendous crimes. Blind obedience cannot excuse those who yield to them.” The Council also considered the massing of arms as a means of avoiding war. It pronounced such a method of deterrence a “treacherous trap for humanity.” It is a trap because it is, without question, a dangerous way of maintaining peace. Moreover, the causes of war are actually intensified because

the vast sums used for stockpiling weapons make it extremely difficult, if not totally impossible in some cases, to give attention to the human misery which is usually the root cause of war. For this reason, the Bishops made an urgent plea for disarmament. But they realized that disarmament is a two-sided coin: it would have little meaning unless all sides agreed on it and unless there were effective means of enforcing it.

What bearing do these general principles have on our involvement in Viet Nam? What implications do they have generally for our efforts to promote world-wide peace?.

4. The Only Alternative--? As in every great human problem, there is no simple solution. American Catholics can put faith in the integrity of our government’s aims in Viet Nam. There is surely abundant evidence of it in a number of areas: the recent large vote in South Viet Nam opening the door to local civilian government: the aid we have given to get such projects as the Mekong Delta improvements underway in Southeastern Asia; the support of the United States voiced in Washington last month by President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines; the total withdrawal of American troops from the Dominican Republic, leading the way to a constitutional government free of extremists, both left and right.

In the light of events rather than slogans, then, it can be argued that to the present course of action in Viet Nam there may be no visible alternative.

But we cannot stop here. It is the Christian duty to keep looking for other alternatives. We must know as much about the factual situation as possible, in order that these alternatives be realistic. To a limited extent our national security requires secrecy. Except for that, however, we must keep insisting that our leaders fully inform us of the facts and issues involved in the Viet Nam war.

We must help to enlarge the new climate of thought, based on Pope John’s principle: in an age which prides itself on its atomic energy, it is unreasonable to hold that war is still a suitable way to restore violated rights. We can help by conversation, study, example, discussion groups and lectures.

Christians should advocate what they believe is the best way to bring about disarmament: mutual agreements, safeguards and inspection; world federalism; the creation of a public authority empowered to negotiate toward peace.

We have the obligation to make sure that our government pursues, vigorously, wholeheartedly and repeatedly every opening which has even the slightest hope of peaceful settlement. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg’s recent summary of the present American policy was such an opening. To the United Nations, he stated that we were ready to join in a phased withdrawal of all external forces, and a halt to bombing upon the assurance from North Viet Nam that it would halt its war effort.

As Cardinal Lawrence Shehan of Baltimore recently said in his splendid pastoral:

“Those who argue against restraint and against keeping a nation’s war making acts within moral bounds are likely to win an even greater hearing. (But) if our means become immoral, our cause will have been betrayed.” We must protest, however, whenever there is danger that our conduct of the war will exceed moral limits. A Christian simply cannot approve indiscriminate bombing, methodical extermination of people, nuclear arms designed for “overkill” or disregard for noncombatants.

In short, our dedication to the cause of peace must become so evident, so intense, so convincing that the old balance of mutual terror will be phased out to make way for a new balance of mutual trust. In Christian confidence, we can hope that if many nations come to trust each other, those who instead rely on war will reevaluate their own positions.

On a broader level, we must give our leaders a mandate to pursue the problem of disarmament that is complete, thorough and internal, resting on mutual agreement and workable safeguards. We cannot stand aside because such a solution is hard to visualize or difficult to achieve.

Moreover, we must never cease to do everything in our power to help make it possible for the poorer nations of the world to give their people what they need - educationally, culturally, materially, and socially - to live in a way that squares with their God-given human dignity. We must be strong for the working out of the social and economic programs that will heal, not inflame, the causes of war.

5. “Never War Again!” Mankind longs for peace, and has tragically sought it through the inhuman process of war. The Church calls for us all, especially parents, teachers and those who form public opinion, to make known “fresh sentiments of peace.” Pope Paul, speaking of the purpose of his recent encyclical, asked, “What is the use of it?” and answered that all Christians should “speak out and pray.”

We must speak out; we cannot remain silent. In his novel, War and Peace, Tolstoy asks how men can ignore the continued disasters in which “Christians, professing the law of love, murder one another.” Christian consciences and voices must be raised against the savagery and terror of war. We must speak out - for justice, for truth, for freedom and for peace.

And we must pray with Christian minds and hearts until hope replaces anxiety, and love crowds out hatred. On October 11, we observe the Motherhood of Our Lady, mother of the Son of God and of all His brothers. Do we love them as brothers? The month ends with the Feast of Christ the King, patron of our Cathedral. The preface of that feast describes a world not stained with the blood of men, but marked by the blood of Christ, the Lamb of God - “a Kingdom of truth and life, of holiness and grace, a Kingdom of justice, of love and peace.” Through the courage and the prayers of each of us, may our country and every other sovereign state “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.” (Is. 2,4)

As people of God, let us reaffirm what Paul VI, his vicar on earth said a year ago to the United Nations: -”never war again!”

Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan

Bishop Joseph L. Bernardin