Vatican City, Nov 10, 2017 / 12:16 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- On Friday, leading Vatican and secular diplomats urged world leaders to freeze investment into nuclear arms production, and to instead fund peace and development initiatives.
“Every day we are bombarded with bad news about the atrocities that we humans can do, harming each other and nature, about the increasing drumbeat of a possible nuclear conflagration and the fact that humanity stands on the precipice of a nuclear holocaust,” Cardinal Peter Turkson said Nov. 10.
Fears over a potential global catastrophe are rising to a level not seen since the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he said.
Ongoing discussion about nuclear weapons is “critical,” Turkson said, adding that the decisions made by global leaders about peace and war in the coming months and years “will have profound consequences for the very future of humanity and our planet.”
Head of the Vatican’s dicastery for Integral Human Development, Turkson gave the opening keynote speech at a Nov. 10-11 conference on nuclear disarmament that his department is organizing.
He noted that the conference overlaps with U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to Asia – which includes stops in South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines – as the U.S. faces heightened tensions with North Korea.
The Vatican conference has been in the works for several years, and was not intentionally planned to overlap with Trump’s Asia visit. The timing, the cardinal jested, is a coincidence that could be seen as an act of “divine providence.”
The two-day symposium on nuclear disarmament is the first global gathering to address the topic since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was passed in New York on July 7. Prior to the treaty, nuclear arms were the only weapons of mass destruction not explicitly banned by any international document.
The treaty passed with 122 votes in favor, with Singapore being the only abstention. However, 69 countries – all the nuclear weapon states and NATO members apart from the Netherlands – did not take part in the vote.
In addition to Cardinal Turkson and Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who also spoke in the opening panel, other participants in the summit include Masako Wada, one of the last survivors of the Hiroshima nuclear attack, 11 Nobel Peace Laureates, representatives from the U. N. and NATO, diplomats from Russia, the United States, South Korea, and Iran, weapons experts and foundation leaders.
Representatives of bishops’ conferences and other Christian organizations are also attending, including a delegation of professors and students from U.S. and Russian universities.
In comments to journalists on the opening day of the event, Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said that despite elevated tensions, the signing of the July treaty is a sign of hope, showing that the majority of countries in the world reject nuclear weapons.
In 2017, Fihn’s organization was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its work drawing attention to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and for its effort to achieve the treaty.
Fihn said she believes it is possible to have a world without nuclear weapons. “We built these weapons (and) we can take them apart,” she said, adding that the world has given up certain chemical and biological weapons in the past.
Izumi Nakamitsu, U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, said the U.N. is grateful to both Pope Francis and the Holy See for organizing the conference.
“Any gathering of world leaders and civil society actors and governments to discuss ways to pursue a nuclear weapons-free zone will be very helpful for the cause of U.N. disarmament activities,” she said, and voiced eagerness to discuss what can practically be done to eradicate nuclear weapons.
Nakamitsu said the U.N. believes the only solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis is a political one, and that talks on disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation create much-needed “breathing space” for trying to find these political solutions.
“So we’re not giving up at all on disarmament, but quite the contrary, because the situation is very difficult, we think disarmament discussions are more important.”
Cardinals Turkson and Parolin both emphasized the need for an integral development aimed at promoting human dignity and the common good as the solution to current nuclear tensions.
Quoting former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1953 speech after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, Turkson said “every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
International peace and stability, Cardinal Turkson said, cannot be based on “a false sense of security, on the threat of mutual destruction or total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a balance of power.”
Rather, he said, peace must be built on justice, development, respect for human rights, the care of creation, participation in public life, mutual trust, support of peaceful institutions, access to education and health, dialogue and solidarity.
Cardinal Parolin echoed these ideas, emphasizing the role of education and dialogue in creating “a culture of life and peace based on the dignity of the human being and the primacy of the law.”
He added that “only a concerted effort on the part of all nations will stop these senseless rivalries and promote fruitful, friendly dialogue between nations.”
In a Nov. 10 statement addressed to Pope Francis on the occasion of the conference, five of the 11 Nobel Prize Laureates participating in the conference said they hope the event will help launch “a new international legal regulation and further stigmatize those weapons and the states that so far refuse to give them up.”
They praised the joint role of civil society, religious communities and various international organizations and states in advancing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which aims to put an end to weapons “that are capable of obliterating life as we know it in the blink of an eye.”
An “inclusive and equitable” international security system which leaves no country feeling that they must depend on nuclear arms is needed, they said, and stressed the necessity to ask oneself “what ethical and moral human beings can possibly believe that it is fine to give machines the ability to kill humans.”
In order to avoid an “impending third revolution in warfare,” the weapons must be eliminated before they ever make it to battle, they said.
And this requites prioritizing the human person over the creation of wealth and realizing that “real security comes from placing the focus on meeting the needs of individuals and communities – human security and promoting the common good.”
Signatories included Professer Mohamed El Baradei; Mrs. Mairead Maguire; Professor Adolfo Perez Esquivel; Professor Jody Williams, and Professor Muhammad Yunus.
In comments to journalists Nov. 10, Yunus, who is from Bangladesh, said Pope Francis’ message on peace and nuclear disarmament is critical. The Pope’s voice, he said, “is respected all over the world, and when he says something, people listen.”
[…]
Benedict’s letter will not leave all of his followers enthralled, because the reevaluation of the total “spiritualization” of the Church perceived as the mystical body now required a “theology of religions”. This would add coherence to Lumen Gentium, often challenged notion of religions other than Catholicism worshiping the same God. As such it would [appear to consequently] reference facing the people rather than ad orientum. Engagement with global projects among them the UN.
Emphasis then is on a more outward than inward ecclesial posture. Some might attribute this letter to the variables of old age. Although, it has to be taken seriously on its merits. For one the Church, whether rightly or wrongly, that is, not in terms of focus rather in feasibility and doctrinal coherence already had begun this process [for example Abu Dhabi].
Theoretically, the Church must appeal to the world in all its entirety, the mission given at the Ascension. In order to do so it cannot remain an attractive medieval artifact highly satisfying to a select body. It must if it is to reach the four global corners acquire a universal posture and messaging consistent with Christ’s revelation. That can be done. Similarly, that does not necessarily sanction the broad based Synodality concept of listening. Instead, it would putatively provide the new missionary able to interface with, engage the world. A realistic faith reflected in its overreaching institutions.
If we don’t write this letter off as the reverie of old age, rather as the reflection of a great churchman and theologian we might consider the words of Cardinal Parolin to Ewtn, that we hold true to the faith but couch it with modesty, respectful of the people of our time. Rather than challenge the pope and his Magisterium. That nevertheless requires reciprocity of the latter holding to the true faith.
Insofar as ad orientem, I’m confidant Benedict, to the contrary of what may be presumed in reading his letter is not repudiating his previous recommendation when pontiff to continue the traditional Latin rite, both for spiritual continuity, and liturgical continuity as a model for enriching the Novus Ordo. Neither does my comment endorse the pontiff’s initial Abu Dhabi remarks.
Churchmen ought to sit up and take a look around before questioning the necessity of the Council or its salubrious effects in the Catholic Church.
Notice how baptisms of children and adults are growing by leaps and bounds. Notice the surge of Catholic marriages, how all who profess the Catholic faith stand up in unison against conteaception and abortion. Notice how Catholic laymen are in the vanguard fighting against the immorality of the culture at large. Witness the long lines for confession. Note, too, the extraordinary missionary efforts of the Church and how ten of thousands of young Catholics devote significant amounts of months and even years proclaiming the Gospel to those who don’t know Christ. Take a look at all the Catholic hospitals being built, the schools that are being founded to serve the poor in countries around the globe and the founding of new religious orders and apostolates to staff these charitable ventures. Look at the vast number of young men entering the priesthood in the USA, in Ireland, France, Spain, and Italy. Look at the number of martyrs for the faith that we have among our bishops. Look at the exemplary lives of our clerics, their holiness, their outspoken witness to the truth in the public forum…such valor, such courage, such faith to dare to proclaim Christ so boldly from the pulpit and in the town square. It’s no wonder that we have vast numbers of people wanting to enter the Catholic Church since the Church is such a model for good in the world. The overwhelming movement of the Holy Spirit among the “people of God” is simply awesome to behold and simply breathtaking.
Why in God’s name would anyone ever question the fruits of Vatican Council II in the life of the Church?
“Why in God’s name would anyone ever question the fruits of Vatican Council ll in the life of the Church.”
Your question is hilariously laughable. Look around you, and you’ve got your answer.
The readers laugh hilariously while you bark. Consider the remote possibility of sarcasm…
Edward Peitler: This mocking antiphrasis of Vatican II that you strongly hold and present here is an illogical and irrational sweeping generalization. It is erroneous and inaccurate to reason that the dwindling numbers and religious practices of Catholics after Vatican II is directly caused by the Council; it’s like reasoning that since Z follows Y, Y must be the cause of Z. There is simply no direct and singular connection between the two leading you to a conclusion that confirms your preconceived bias that the Council was a disaster furthering your chosen resistance and rejection of the reforms and teachings of the Council manifested especially in your disrespect and disloyalty of Pope Francis who continues to implement Vatican II today. This reasoning is irrational and unfounded. This view is indicative of a narrow-mindedness and misplaced North American and European perspective (the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) which is blind to the wider picture of the Church worldwide that includes the explosive growth of Catholic membership and practice in other continents especially in Africa after the Council. The decrease in religious practices in the West did not only affect the Catholic Church but also other churches and religions as well. This phenomenon is scientifically attributed by sociologists and anthropologists to the overall rise and spread of secularism in the West. You are wrong to imply a direct connection between Vatican II and the decline of the number and religious practices of Catholics. The facts and reality worldwide belie and debunk your fiction and belief flowing from and due to a fallacy of misplaced concreteness and/or preconceived bias.
I think your defense of the fruits of the post Vatican II Church is eloquent.
Edward Peitler’s Description of the imaginary Church today I found very funny. Jan Michael, do you not see the real situation in the Church today? All the opposite, which Mr. Peitler points out, is precisely what has been done in the name of Vatican ll. And all that was done in the name of Vatican ll are actually in the Council texts. I’m left to wonder if His Holiness Pope Benedict XVl does not view the Abhu Dhabi signing as legitimate, as the Council does say that we Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. That violates Dogmatic Decrees and common sense that we do not worship the same God. Our God is Trinitarian, the Second Person became Man, he gave us Seven Sacraments, and he suffered and was crucified for our Salvation. Compare this to any other Religion and tell us we worship the same God as Vatican ll states.
Deacon. Nice essay!! As the saying goes, “the proof is in the pudding”. I appreciate hearing Mass in English but have no objection to the return of the use of some Latin. Otherwise i am afraid i fail to see what positive impact V2 had. The draining of the church of priests and nuns was especially damaging.
Leaps and bounds? Seriously deacon? The church is in freefall. Look around.
As an obedient son of Pope Benedict XVl this has knocked me to the floor. I certainly will not question His Holiness. But I am left disappointed. I would hope, as Archbishop Vigano, that Vatican ll be declared illegitimate considering how the Council began and how things ended up. God Bless you, Pope Benedict XVl, and may he give you many more years.
I’m getting tired of hearing that, because of the growth of the Church in Africa and Asia, we shouldn’t worry so much about the decline (understatement) in our own cultures (speaking as a Westerner).
Vatican II is a representation of the church as it was in the mind of Christ in the founding of the Church. People who do not perceive its fruitfulness are those who are not open to the moves of the Spirit.