Dear Friends: I believe this Statement deserves a comment. First, I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect and admiration for Pax Christi. I have represented many of their people over the years free of charge. I also have the greatest respect and admiration for Tom Gumbleton. I believe he is the most courageous and principled Catholic Bishop in the United States today. That being said, I did my very first anti-nuclear protest case for a Pax Christi resister in mid-June of 1982, that is sixteen years ago at this time and one year before the original Catholic Bishop's Statement on Nuclear Deterrence. At that time we both argued in Federal District Court down in Kansas City that nuclear weapons/deterrence were illegal, immoral and criminal. Despite our best efforts, my Pax Christi client spent one year in a federal penitentiary for praying on top of an IBM silo down there. And then right about the time my Pax Christi client was getting out of prison, the Catholic Bishops came out with a Statement that nuclear deterrence is morally defensible so long as it is being used to promote nuclear disarmament negotiations. The 1983 Statement was a moral cop-out--and for political reasons. The Catholic Bishops decided to give the Reagan administration some wiggle room in their letter. And this despite the fact that at the time the Reagan administration was engaged in the most massive build-up of the US nuclear weapons establishment since Kennedy/McNamara and actively promoting an aggressive nuclear war fighting strategy. By comparison, in 1986 the Methodist Bishops put out a Statement entitled In Defense of Creation. The Methodist Bishops condemned nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence in no uncertain terms--unequivocally, unconditionally. Indeed, they called nuclear deterrence "idolatry." Certainly, it is. Nuclear weapons/deterrence were illegal,immoral and criminal when my Pax Christi client and I first made the arguments in court back in 1982, one year before the Catholic Bishop's original Statement on the subject. Nuclear weapons/deterrence are still illegal,imoral and criminal today. In that regard, nothing has changed. By comparison, this new Statement seems to imply that the moral situation has somehow changed during the past fifteen years. I submit it has not! With great respect for Pax Christi, Tom Gumbleton and the Catholic Bishops who signed this 1998 Statement, it seems to me that they must recognize that the 1983 Statement was morally indefensible--a false teaching. If for political reasons the 1983 Statement cannot be repudiated, then certainly in the future any analysis of the nuclear question by the Catholic Bishops must not build upon it. Although I am not a Methodist myself, it seems to me that it would be worthwhile if the Catholic Bishops could bring themselves to accept the analysis of the Methodist Bishops against the morality of nuclear deterrence. Or at least the US Catholic Bishops could adopt the moral teachings of Thomas Merton against nuclear weapons--before he was silenced because of political pressure brought to bear upon his superiors. Sincerely, Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, Ill. 61820 Phone: 217-333-7954 Fax: 217-244-1478 fboyle@law.uiuc.edu > ---------- > From: Phyllis Turner Jepson[SMTP:paxwpb@gate.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 7:32 AM > To: dpatwood@igc.apc.org; connelljc4@aol.com; tomcordaro@juno.com; > eirik@igc.org; kmcelaney@holycross.edu; gea475@igc.apc.org; > ejcenta@aol.com; 4thr@gate.net; delrauth@aol.com; toniepax@aol.com; > avonwellsheim@rscj.org; PHBRLA@aol.com; BMC9566@mailer.fsu.edu; > EFNEFjohn@aol.com; MHovey@mailbox.iona.edu; TK1010@worldnet.att.net; > pops2_5@azstarnet.com; mbsull@aol.com; Mcnassar@aol.com; > PCPS@MSMARY.EDU; pagnucco@MSMARY.EDU; ulan@capecod.net; JZoko@aol.com; > kmcelaney@holycross.edu; dpatwood@igc.apc.org; metanoia@juno.com; > gvanderh@asgard.cbu.edu; toniepax@aol.com; dorney@juno.com; > TORPHILA@aol.com; peg@aug.com; Taflo08@aol.com; > arichter@com1.med.usf.edu; paxwbscr@aol.com; PaxJoliet@aol.com; > mwaren@stu.edu; tsullivan@igc.apc.org; Jagdes@igc.apc.org; > twebb@woodsidepriory.com; cricchio@juno.com; jjspeer@flash.net; > jmlees@capecod.net; eirik@igc.apc.org; nypaxchristi@igc.apc.org; > eolof001@gold.tc.umn.edu; Fdworak@aol.com; BGD@INPRO.net; > shalom@internetmci.com; jmacfad@aol.com; Crayton@mizar.usc.edu; > Hallmjc@flash.net; delrauth@aol.com; eirik@igc.apc.org; > nypaxchristi@igc.apc.org; tkranock@skadden.com; > kmcelaney@holycross.edu; baobab@grove.ufl.edu; afs@grove.ufl.edu; > idahom@aug.com; abolition-caucus@igc.org; afscinfo@afsc.org; > landmines@nccbuscc.org; cco@igc.apc.org; > cdfsabbaths@childrensdefense.org; grassroots5@juno.com; > mknolldc@igc.apc.org; etanfield@igc.apc.org; epica@igc.apc.org; > epf@igc.apc.org; faheyjj@igc.apc.org; jgreene@flcath.org; > fornatl@igc.apc.org; globalresponse@igc.apc.org; lummox@best.com; > meganmck@juno.com; network@igc.apc.org; nisbco@igc.apc.org; > office@pci.ngonet.be; rrandall@compuserve.com; sojourn@ari.net; > gvanderh@asgard.cbu.edu; mcwaren@juno.com; mwaren@stu.edu; > JZoko@aol.com > Subject: 75 Pax Christi USA Bishops Condemn Nuclear Deterrence > > <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> > Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:35:27 -0400 > From: Dave Robinson > Subject: 75 Pax Christi USA Bishops Condemn Nuclear Deterrence > To: "'abolition-caucus@igc.apc.org'" > > Pax Christi USA > The national Catholic peace movement > 532 W. 8th St. > Erie, PA 16502 > 814-453-4955 IMMEDIATE RELEASE > June 10, 1998 > Contact: Dave Robinson > 814-453-4955 Ext. 235 > dave@paxchristiusa.org > > 75 U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONDEMN POLICY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE > Erie, PA -- Nuclear deterrence as a national policy must be > condemned as morally abhorrent because it's the excuse and > justification > for the continued possession and further development of nuclear > weapons, > say 73 U.S. Catholic bishops in a report issued today by Pax Christi > USA, > the national Catholic peace and justice organization. > The report, "The Morality of Nuclear Deterrence: An Evaluation > by > Pax Christi Bishops in the United States," critiques current U.S. > nuclear > weapons policy in light of the Catholic Church's 1983 pastoral > statement, > "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response," which > allowed > for the morality of nuclear deterrence on the condition that it only > be > an interim measure tied to progressive disarmament. Further Catholic > Church teaching has since called for a concrete policy of nuclear > elimination. > "With the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, we feel > our > statement is both timely and prophetic," says Walter F. Sullivan, > Bishop > of Richmond, Va. and president of Pax Christi USA. "We hope it will > help > generate further discussions both within the Catholic community and in > > the policy-making circles of our government." > The report recognizes the dramatic changes that have occurred > since the end of the Cold War and offers a warning. "Because of the > horrendous results if these weapons were to be used, and what we see > as a > greater liklihood of their use, we feel it is imperative to raise a > clear, unambiguous voice in opposition to the continued reliance on > nuclear deterrence," the report states. > Coming in the wake of the recent nuclear tests by India and > Pakistan, the report calls for the United States and the other nuclear > > weapons states to enter into a process that will lead to a Nuclear > Weapons Convention that would ban nuclear weapons the way that the > Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions have banned those weapons. > "What the Indian and Pakistani tests make clear is that the > discriminatory nature of current nonproliferation efforts will not > free > the world of the threat posed by these weapons," says Bishop Thomas > Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, Mich., and a leading expert on > > nuclear deterrence in the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. > "The > choice today is clear. Either all nations must give up the right to > possess these weapons or all nations will claim that right. The > events > in India and Pakistan must be recognized as a sign of what is > inevitable. > We must act now to avoid a future where the nuclear threat becomes > the > currency of international security." > Citing the $60 billion Department of Energy program known as > Stockpile Stewardship and Management, as well as current > administration > policies, the bishops conclude that the United States plans to rely on > > nuclear weapons indefinitely. > "Such an investment in a program to upgrade the ability to > design, develop, test, and maintain nuclear weapons signals quite > clearly > that the United States (and the other nuclear weapons states that are > similarly developing these new design and testing capabilities) shows > no > intention of moving forward with 'progressive disarmament' and > certainly > no commitment to eliminating these weapons entirely," state the > bishops. > -30- > For media interviews, call Dave Robinson, program director, Pax > Christi > USA, at 814-453-4955, Ext. 235. > > > > > > The Morality of Nuclear Deterrence > > An Evaluation by Pax Christi Bishops in the United States > > > > > > > Issued on the 15th Anniversary of Challenge of Peace, God's Promise > and > Our Response > June 1998 > > > > > June 1998 > > > Dear Sisters and Brothers, > > We, the undersigned Catholic bishops of the United States and > members of Pax Christi USA, write to you on a matter of grave moral > concern: the continued possession, development and plans for the use > of > nuclear weapons by our country. For the past fifteen years, and > particularly in the context of the Cold War, we, the Catholic bishops > of > the United States, have reluctantly acknowledged the possibility that > nuclear weapons could have some moral legitimacy, but only if the goal > > was nuclear disarmament. It is our present, prayerful judgment that > this > legitimacy is now lacking. > > In 1983 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in our > Pastoral Letter The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our > Response, > grappled with the unique moral challenge posed by nuclear weapons. > Fifteen years ago we stated that, because of the massive and > indiscriminate destruction that nuclear weapons would inflict, their > use > would not be morally justified.i We spoke in harmony with the > conscience > of the world in that judgment. We reaffirm that judgment now. > Nuclear > weapons must never be used, no matter what the provocation, no matter > what the military objective. > > Deterrence > Fifteen years ago we concurred with Pope John Paul II in > acknowledging that, given the context of that time, possession of > these > weapons as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by others > could > be morally acceptable, but acceptable only as an interim measure and > only > if deterrence were combined with clear steps toward progressive > disarmament. > > Ours was a strictly conditioned moral acceptance of nuclear > deterrence. It depended on three criteria: > > a) a reliance on deterrent strategies must be an interim > > policy only. As we stated then, "We cannot > consider > it adequate as a long-term basis for peace;"ii > > b) the purpose of maintaining nuclear weapons in the > interim was only "to prevent the use of nuclear > weapons by others;"iii and > > c) a reliance on deterrence must be used "not as an end > in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive > > disarmament."iv > > In our 10th Anniversary Statement, The Harvest of Justice is > Sown > in Peace, we further specified that "progressive disarmament" must > mean a > commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons, not simply as an > ideal, > but as a concrete policy goal.v > > > A New Moment > > In 1998 the global context is significantly different from what > it was a few years ago. Throughout the Cold War the nuclear arsenal > was > developed and maintained as the ultimate defense in an ideological > conflict that pitted what were considered two historical forces > against > each other -- capitalism in the West and communism in the East. The > magnitude of that conflict was defined by the mutual exclusivity of > each > other's ideology. Nuclear weapons and the policy of Mutually Assured > Destruction were accepted as the inescapable context of that > particular > struggle. Today the Soviet Union no longer exists. The United States > is > now aiding its democratic successor, the Russian Federation, in > dismantling the very nuclear weapons that a short time ago were poised > to > destroy us. Yet, the Cold War weapons amassed throughout that > struggle > have survived the struggle itself and are today in search of new > justifications and new missions to fulfill. > > But, with the end of the Cold War came new hope. World opinion > > has coalesced around the concrete effort to outlaw nuclear weapons, as > it > has with biological and chemical weapons and most recently with > anti-personnel landmines. As examples of this opinion we note the > dramatic public statement of December 1996 in which 61 retired > Generals > and Admirals, many of whom held the highest level positions in the > nuclear establishment of this country, said that these weapons are > unnecessary, destabilizing and must be outlawed.vi We also note the > historic International Court of Justice opinion of July 1996 that, > "The > threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the > rules > of international law applicable to armed conflict, and in particular > the > principles and rules of humanitarian law." The Court went on to say, > "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a > conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its > aspects > under strict an! > d effective international control."vii > > Additionally, the Holy See has become more explicit in its > condemnation of nuclear weapons and has urged their abolition. We > recognize this new moment and are in accord with the Holy See, which > has > stated, "If biological weapons, chemical weapons and now landmines can > be > done away with, so too can nuclear weapons. No weapon so threatens > the > longed-for peace of the 21st century as the nuclear [weapon]. Let not > > the immensity of this task dissuade us from the efforts needed to free > > humanity from such a scourge."viii > > Unfortunately the monumental political changes that have > occurred > in the wake of the Cold War have not been accompanied by similar far > reaching changes in the military planning for development and > deployment > of nuclear weapons. It is absolutely clear to us that the present US > policy does not include a decisive commitment to progressive nuclear > disarmament. Rather, nuclear weapons policy has been expanded in the > post-Cold War period to include new missions well beyond their > previous > role as a deterrent to nuclear attack. The United States today > maintains > a commitment to use nuclear weapons first, including pre-emptive > nuclear > attacks on nations that do not possess nuclear weapons. "Flexible > targeting strategies" are aimed at Third World nations, and a new > commitment exists to use nuclear weapons either preemptively or in > response to chemical and biological weapons or other threats to US > national interests.ix This expanded role of the US nuclear deterrent > is > unacceptable. ! > > > A New Arms Race > > In order to maintain the necessary credibility required by a > continued reliance on nuclear deterrence, the United States is today > embarking on an expansion of its nuclear weapons complex. The > Department > of Energy, in conjunction with the Department of Defense, has > developed > the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, a vast and > multi-faceted effort at modernizing the nuclear weapons complex to > provide for the continued research, development and testing of nuclear > > weapons well into the next century. The program will eventually lead > to > creating computer-simulated nuclear weapons tests that will allow the > United States to continue to test nuclear weapons in the event that > the > Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, (which will ban full-scale underground > nuclear testing) enters into force.x The cost of this Stockpile > Stewardship program is currently estimated at $60 billion over the > next > dozen years. Such an investment in a program to upgrade the ability > to > design, develop, test! > and maintain nuclear weapons signals quite clearly that the United > States, (as well as the other nuclear weapons states that are > similarly > developing these new testing and design capabilities) shows no > intention > of moving forward with "progressive disarmament" and certainly no > commitment to eliminating these weapons entirely.xi > > Instead of progressive nuclear disarmament, we are witnessing > the > institutionalization of nuclear deterrence. The recent Presidential > Decision Directive on nuclear weapons policy, partially made known to > the > public in December 1997, makes this point clear. The Directive > indicates > that the United States will continue to rely on nuclear weapons as the > > cornerstone of the nation's strategic defense, that the role of these > weapons has been increased to include deterring Third World > non-nuclear > weapons states and deterring chemical and biological weapons, as well > as > other undefined vital US interests abroad.xii Does not this policy, > coupled with the huge investments under the Stockpile Stewardship > Program, represent a renewed commitment to nuclear deterrence that > will > affect generations to come? The Department of Energy's own timetable > for > the Stockpile Stewardship Program indicates that the United States > will > continue to develop, test and rely upon a nuclear deterrent through ! > the year 2065.xiii This is clearly not the interim policy to which we > > grudgingly gave our moral approval in 1983. Rather, it is the > manifestation of the very reliance on nuclear nproliferation Treaty. > In > Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace we addressed the growing concerns > that nuclear weapons might be used against other than nuclear threats: > > "The United States should commit itself never to use nuclear weapons > first, should unequivocally reject proposals to use nuclear weapons to > > deter non-nuclear threats, and should reinforce the fragile barrier > against the use of these weapons."xv Nuclear deterrence policy, as > developed over the past decade, stands in clear contradiction to these > > goals. > > Inherent Dangers > > The policy of nuclear deterrence has always included the > intention to use the weapons if deterrence should fail. Since the end > of > the Cold War this deterrent has been expanded to include any number of > > potential aggressors, proliferators and so-called "rogue nations." > The > inherent instability in a world unconstrained by the great-power > standoff > present throughout the Cold War leads us to conclude that the danger > of > deterrence failing has been increased. That danger can become > manifest > if but one so-called "rogue state" calls the deterrent bluff. In such > a > case the requirements of deterrence policy would be the actual use of > nuclear weapons. This must not be allowed. Because of the horrendous > > results if these weapons should be used, and what we see as a greater > likelihood of their use, we now feel it is imperative to raise a > clear, > unambiguous voice in opposition to the continued reliance on nuclear > deterrence. > > > Moral Conclusions > > Sadly, it is clear to us that our strict conditions for the > moral > acceptance of nuclear deterrence are not being met. Specifically, > > a) the policy of nuclear deterrence is being > institutionalized. It is no longer considered an > interim policy but rather has become the very "long-term basis for > peace" that we rejected in 1983. > > b) the role of nuclear deterrence has been expanded in > the post Cold War era well beyond the narrow role of > deterring the use of nuclear weapons by others. The > role to be played now by nuclear weapons includes a whole range of > contingencies on a global scale including > countering biological and chemical weapons and the > protection of vital national interests abroad. > > c) although the United States and the republics that > made > up the former Soviet Union have in recent years > eliminated some of their huge, superfluous stockpiles > > of nuclear weapons, our country, at least, has no intention, or policy > > position of eliminating these weapons entirely. > Rather, the US intends to retain its nuclear > deterrent > into the indefinite future. > > > Gospel Call of Love > > As bishops of the Church in the United States, it is incumbent > on > us to speak directly to the policies and actions of our nation. We > speak > now out of love not only for those who would suffer and die as victims > of > nuclear violence, but also for those who would bear the terrible > responsibility of unleashing these horrendous weapons. We speak out > of > love for those suffering because of the medical effects in communities > > where these weapons are produced and are being tested. We speak out > of > love for those deprived of the barest necessities because of the huge > amount of available resources committed to the continued development > and > ongoing maintenance of nuclear weapons. We recall the words of > another > Vatican message to the United Nations, that these weapons, "by their > cost > alone, kill the poor by causing them to starve."xvi We speak out of > love > for both victims and the executioners, believing that "the whole law > is > fulfilled in one statement, namely, 'You shall love your neig! > hbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5-14). > > > It is out of this love that we raise up our voices with those > around the world in calling for an end to the reliance on nuclear > deterrence and instead call upon the United States and the other > nuclear > weapons states to enter into a process leading to the complete > elimination of these morally offensive weapons. Indeed, in taking > this > position we are answering the call of Pope John Paul II, whose > Permanent > Representative to the United Nations stated in October 1997: > > "The work that this committee (1st Committee of the United > Nations) has done in calling for negotiations leading to a nuclear > weapons convention must be increased. Those nuclear weapons states > resisting such negotiations must be challenged, for in clinging to > their > outmoded rationales for nuclear deterrence they are denying the most > ardent aspirations of humanity as well as the opinion of the highest > legal authority in the world. The gravest consequences for humankind > lie > ahead if the world is to be ruled by the militarism represented by > nuclear weapons rather than the humanitarian law espoused by the > International Court of Justice. > "Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the > > 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation. > The > preservation of the Nonproliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal > commitment to their abolition. > "This is a moral challenge, a legal challenge and a political > challenge. That multi-based challenge must be met by the application > of > our humanity."xvii > > We recognize the opposition that our message will meet. We are > painfully aware that many of our policymakers sincerely believe that > possessing nuclear weapons is vital for our national security. We are > > convinced though, that it is not. Instead, they make the world a more > > dangerous place. They provide a rationale for other nations to build > a > nuclear arsenal, thereby increasing the possibility that they will be > used by someone. > > Not only are they not vital for national security, but we > believe > they actually contribute to national insecurity. No nation can be > truly > secure until the community of nations is secure. We are mindful of > Pope > John Paul II's warning that "violence of whatever form cannot decide > conflicts between individuals or between nations, because violence > generates more violence."xviii > > On this, the 15th anniversary of The Challenge of Peace the time > > has come for concrete action for nuclear disarmament. On the eve of > the > Third Millennium may our world rid itself of these terrible weapons of > > mass destruction and the constant threat they pose. We cannot delay > any > longer. Nuclear deterrence as a national policy must be condemned as > morally abhorrent because it is the excuse and justification for the > continued possession and further development of these horrendous > weapons. > We urge all to join in taking up the challenge to begin the effort to > > eliminate nuclear weapons now, rather than relying on them > indefinitely. > > May the grace and peace of the risen Jesus Christ be with us > all. > > > Anthony S. Apuron, OFM, Cap. > Archbishop of Agana, Guam > > Victor Balke > Bishop of Crookston, MN > > William D. Borders > Archbishop of Baltimore, MD (ret.) > > Joseph M. Breitenbeck > Bishop of Grand Rapids, MI (ret.) > > Charles A. Buswell > Bishop of Pueblo, CO (ret.) > > Matthew H. Clark > Bishop of Rochester, NY > > Thomas J. Connolly > Bishop of Baker, OR > > Patrick R. Cooney > Bishop of Gaylord, MI > > Thomas V. Daily > Bishop of Brooklyn, NY > > James J. Daly > Auxiliary Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY (ret.) > > Nicholas D'Antonio, OFM > Bishop of New Orleans, LA (ret.) > > Joseph P. Delaney > Bishop of Fort Worth, TX > > Norbert L. Dorsey, C.P > Bishop of Orlando, FL > > Joseph A. Ferrario > Bishop of Honolulu, HI (ret.) > > John J. Fitzpatrick > Bishop of Brownsville, TX (ret.) > > Patrick F. Flores > Archbishop of San Antonio, TX > > Joseph A. Fiorenza > Bishop of Galveston-Houston, TX > > Raphael M. Fliss > Bishop of Superior, WI > > Marion F. Forst > Bishop of Dodge City, KS (ret.) > > Benedict C. Franzetta > Auxiliary Bishop of Youngstown, OH (ret.) > > Raymond E. Goedert > Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, IL > > John R. Gorman > Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, IL > > F. Joseph Gossman > Bishop of Raleigh, NC > > Thomas J. Gumbleton > Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, MI > > Richard C. Hanifen > Bishop of Colorado Springs, CO > > Edward D. Head > Bishop of Buffalo, NY (ret.) > > Joseph L. Howze > Bishop of Biloxi, MS > > Howard J. Hubbard > Bishop of Albany, NY > > William A. Hughes > Bishop of Covington, KY (ret.) > > Raymond G. Hunthausen > Archbishop of Seattle, WA (ret.) > > Joseph L. Imesch > Bishop of Joliet, IL > > Michael J. Kaniecki, S.J. > Bishop of Fairbanks, AK > > Raymond A. Lucker > Bishop of New Ulm, MN > > Dominic A. Marconi > Auxiliary Bishop of Newark, NJ > > Joseph F. Maguire > Bishop of Springfield, MA (ret.) > > Leroy T. Matthiesen > Bishop of Amarillo, TX (ret.) > > Edward A. McCarthy > Archbishop of Miami, FL (ret.) > > John E. McCarthy > Bishop of Austin, TX > > Lawrence J. McNamara > Bishop of Grand Island, NE > > John J. McRaith > Bishop of Owensboro, KY > > Dale J. Melczek > Bishop of Gary, IN > > Donald W. Montrose > Bishop of Stockton, CA > > Robert M. Moskal > Bishop of St. Josaphat in Parma, OH > > Michael J. Murphy > Bishop of Erie, PA (ret.) > > P. Francis Murphy > Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, MD > > William C. Newman > Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, MD > > James D. Niedergeses > Bishop of Nashville, TN (ret.) > > Edward. J. O'Donnell > Bishop of Lafayette, LA > > Albert H. Ottenweller > Bishop of Steubenville, OH (ret.) > > Donald E. Pelotte, S.S.S. > Bishop of Gallup, NM > > A. Edward Pevec > Auxiliary Bishop of Cleveland, OH > > Michael D. Pfeifer, O.M.I. > Bishop of San Angelo, TX > > Kenneth J. Povish > Bishop of Lansing, MI (ret.) > > Francis A. Quinn > Bishop of Sacramento, CA (ret.) > > John R. Roach > Archbishop of St. Paul /Minneapolis, MN (ret.) > > Frank J. Rodimer > Bishop of Paterson, NJ > > Peter A. Rosazza > Auxiliary Bishop of Hartford, CT > > Joseph M. Sartoris > Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, CA > > Walter J. Schoenherr > Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, MI (ret.) > > Roger L. Schwietz, OMI > Bishop of Duluth, MN > > Daniel E. Sheehan > Archbishop of Omaha, NE (ret.) > > Richard J. Sklba > Auxiliary Bishop of Milwaukee, WI > > John J. Snyder > Bishop of St. Augustine, FL > > George H. Speltz > Bishop of St. Cloud, MN (ret.) > > Kenneth D. Steiner > Auxiliary Bishop of Portland, OR > > Joseph M. Sullivan > Auxiliary Bishop of Brooklyn, NY > > Walter F. Sullivan > Bishop of Richmond, VA > > Arthur N. Tafoya > Bishop of Pueblo, CO > > Elliot G. Thomas > Bishop of St. Thomas, VI > > David B. Thompson > Bishop of Charleston, SC > > Kenneth E. Untener > Bishop of Saginaw, MI > > Loras J. Watters > Bishop of Winona, CA (ret.) > > Emil A. Wcela > Auxiliary Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY > > > > 1 The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, NCCB, 1983, > No. > 150. > 1 Ibid., Challenge of Peace, No. 186 > 1 Ibid., Challenge of Peace, No. 185 & 188 (1) > 1 John Paul II, "Message to the United Nations Special Session On > Disarmament, 1982," #8 > 1 The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace, NCCB, 1993, p. 13. > 1 New York Times, December 6, 1996, Statement on Nuclear Weapons by 61 > > International Generals and Admirals. > 1 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the > (Il)legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, July 8, 1996. > 1 Archbishop Renato Martino, United Nations Permanent Observer of the > Holy See, Statement to the United Nations' 1st Committee, Oct. 15, > 1997. > 1 British American Security Information Council, Nuclear Futures: > Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and US Nuclear Strategy, > March 1, 1998. p.10 > 1 President William J. Clinton, Letter of Transmittal of the > Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the United States Senate, Sept. 22, > 1997. > 1 Western States Legal Foundation, A Faustian Bargain: Why "Stockpile > Stewardship" is Incompatible with the Process of Nuclear Disarmament, > March 1998. > 1 Reported in the Washington Post, December 7, 1997, p. 1. > 1 Information shared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory(LLNL) > Senior NIF Scientist, William J. Hogan with Pax Christi USA Delegation > to > LLNL, October 7, 1997. > 1 British American Security Information Council, Nuclear Futures: > Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and US Nuclear Strategy, > March 1, 1998. p.9. > 1 The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace, NCCB, 1993, p. 13. > 1 Giovanni Cheli, Permanent Representative for the Holy See Observer > Mission to the United Nations, United Nations 1st Special Session on > Disarmament, 1976. > 1 Archbishop Renato Martino, United Nations Permanent Observer of the > Holy See, Statement to the United Nations' 1st Committee, Oct. 15, > 1997. > 1 Pope John Paul II, Address to Pax Christi International, May 29, > 1995. > > > > > > > > <---- End Forwarded Message ----> > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > Phyllis Turner Jepson > Pax Christi USA Local/Regional Coordinator > Phone/Fax: 561/842-7701 > E-mail: paxwpb@gate.net > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + >