Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE FOURTH SESSION

September 14 to December 8, 1965

WAR AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS

War and nuclear weapons were treated in Articles 84 and 85 of the revised schema on the Church in the modern world, which was distributed to the Council Fathers on November 12, 1965, late in the fourth session. Archbishop Philip M. Hannan, of New Orleans, Louisiana, was dissatisfied with the two articles and began to prepare amendments. He charged that the section on war was “immature and full of errors,” and claimed that, if the text were to be published in its present form, it would become “an object of ridicule in the world’s halls of political and military science.”

Article 84 was incorrect, he said, when it stated that “any use” of nuclear weapons was “absolutely illicit,” since there were several nuclear weapons with a very precise and limited field of destruction. The schema also erred in this article, he said, when it declared that it was “unreasonable to consider war as an apt means of restoring violated rights.” Since a military invasion violates the rights of a nation, and since the only means of repelling such an invasion is through the use of arms by war, it therefore followed that war was “an apt and necessary means of restoring violated rights.”

Article 85 erred, he said, in that it condemned a nation “for possessing nuclear weapons,” and it further erred in stating that “the production and possession of nuclear arms aggravates the causes of war.” The causes of war were injustice and unjust aspirations, “not the possession of nuclear arms, which under proper control can prevent injustice and aggression.” The same article ignored the fact that “the possession of nuclear arms by some nations had protected extensive areas of the world from possible aggression.” Archbishop Hannan had called these items to the attention of the joint commission a year earlier, but his minority opinion had been ignored.

On November 22, 1965, he discussed with Cardinal Shehan, of Baltimore, Maryland, the contents of a letter which he was preparing on Articles 84 and 85, and which he planned to send to all Council Fathers. Cardinal Shehan inquired about the stand of the German hierarchy in the matter, but Archbishop Hannan was not aware of it. In the days that followed, the Archbishop’s letter was signed by the following prelates: Cardinals Spellman and Shehan; the archbishops of Washington, D. C., Mexico City, Durban, Hobart, and Parana; the Maronite archbishop of Tyr, Lebanon; and the Franciscan bishop of Tlalnepantla, Mexico.

On December 2, the latest revision of the schema was distributed to the Council Fathers, containing the final qualifications introduced by the joint commission, and the vote was announced for Saturday, two days later. That night, a dozen nuns printed and folded the circular letters and stuffed them into envelopes until 1:00 a.m. There were French, Italian and Spanish translations of the English letter, and the envelopes, already addressed and divided by streets, were individually marked to indicate what language edition was to be inserted. These same nuns had repeatedly assisted with similar drives in the course of the Council.

At 7:30 a.m. on Friday, December 3 , a fleet of six cars began delivering copies of the letter to the residences of more than 2000 Council Fathers. The nuns drove one of the cars, and eight other nuns delivered letters on foot to areas where parking space was not available. By 4130 that afternoon the work was done.

Archbishop Hannan’s letter invited the Council Fathers to cast a negative vote on December 4 on the chapter about war and nuclear weapons, and suggested that the entire schema as well should receive a negative vote, if the “errors” described in his letter were not corrected. He proposed that the document, if rejected, should be transferred to the Synod of Bishops for further study, correction and promulgation.

The Archbishop objected to Article 80 (formerly 84), which stated that “those who possess modern nuclear weapons are provided with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations” as “the indiscriminate destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population.” He also objected to Article 81 (formerly 85), which bluntly stated that, because of the accumulation of nuclear arms, “the causes of war, instead of being eliminated, threaten to become gradually worse.”

In his letter he maintained that these sentences ignored the fact that the possession of nuclear arms had preserved freedom for “a very large portion of the world.” This defense from aggression he said, was “not a crime, but a great service.” It was as illogical to say that nuclear arms were a cause of war and dissension, he said, “as to say that the law and police force in a city cause the crime and disorder in a city.” The letter warned that “the inclusion of these sentences and thoughts in the schema” would certainly hurt “the cause of freedom in the world,” and emphasized that they contradicted that part of the address of Pope Paul VI to the United Nations, in which he affirmed a nation’s right of self-defense. According to Archbishop Hannan, there was “no adequate self-defense for the largest nations in today’s world,” unless they possessed nuclear weapons.

On Saturday, December 4, the Council Fathers were asked to indicate whether they were pleased with the way in which the joint commission had handled the qualifications on war and nuclear weapons. That same morning word was spread in the Council hall that Cardinal Shehan had signed the letter “without reading it,” and that he would not cast a negative vote as requested in the letter. Although the first part of the rumor was false, he actually had changed his mind about how to vote.

Two priests had assisted Archbishop Hannan, and they now suggested that if there were several hundred votes that morning against the chapter on war and nuclear weapons, he would be in an advantageous position and could go directly to the Holy Father, point out the great dissatisfaction among the Council Fathers, and propose how the text might be altered before the over-all vote scheduled for Monday morning. But as it happened, the returns on the chapter were not announced until Monday, so this plan fell through.

On December 4, still another rumor began making the rounds. This one claimed that Pope Paul had sent Cardinal Spellman a telegram, asking him to do his best to stop the campaign launched by Archbishop Hannan, and to withdraw his support.

On Sunday, December 5, the joint commission published a letter signed by Bishop Joseph Schroffer, of Eichstatt, Germany, chairman of the subcommission responsible for the chapter on war and nuclear arms, and by Archbishop Garrone, who in the Council hall had read the report on the schema in the name of the joint commission. Their letter stated that the reasons given in “a page signed by Cardinal Spellman and nine other Council Fathers” for casting negative votes against the schema section dealing with war were not valid, because they were based on “an erroneous interpretation of the text.”

Archbishop Hannan, taking into account the impression conveyed to the average reader, for whom the pastoral constitution was intended, had stated that in the schema “the possession of nuclear arms is condemned as immoral.” The rebuttal of Bishop Schroffer and Archbishop Garrone claimed that “nowhere in Articles 80 and 81 is the possession of nuclear arms condemned as immoral.” The words of the text were selected with a purpose, they said, and must be accurately understood. Nor was it denied that freedom could be temporarily preserved through the possession and accumulation of nuclear weapons. It was only denied that the arms race was “a safe way to preserve lasting peace.” Nor was it stated that nuclear arms were “causes of war,” The letter went on to say that the schema did not contradict “the right, affirmed in the context, of some nation defending itself with violence against unjust aggression . . .”

In addition to the interpretation given by the joint commission in this letter, there was the official comment contained in the reports to the general assembly. These now stated that Article 81 did not intend “to condemn nuclear weapons indiscriminately,” and that the text in no way intended to impose “an obligation of unilateral destruction of atomic weapons.” These statements, and mention of the right to self-defense, were due to a large extent to the campaign conducted by Archbishop Hannan.

The rumor about the Pope’s sending Cardinal Spellman a telegram was still circulating among the Council Fathers on Sunday, so that evening I telephoned Archbishop Hannan to ask if it was true. “I spoke with Cardinal Spellman today,” he replied, “and he gave me no indication that he had changed his mind. If he did receive such a telegram, I should think that I would be the first one to learn about it.”

Late that Sunday night a Curia cardinal informed some bishops that “over 400 negative votes” had been cast against the chapter on war and nuclear weapons in the voting on Saturday. The same cardinal stated that Cardinal Cicognani was telling members of the Roman Curia to advise as many Council Fathers as possible to vote against the schema on the following day.

The vote on the schema as a whole took place on Monday, December 6. Before the ballot was taken, it was announced that the chapter on war and nuclear weapons had received 483 negative votes on Saturday. Considering themselves beaten, many of those who had voted against the chapter now voted in favor of the schema as a whole, and the text was accepted by a vote of 2111 to 251.

As the Council Fathers poured out of St. Peter’s that morning, I waited at the exit used by the cardinals. After Cardinal Spellman was helped into his car, I went up to his secretary and asked, “Is it true that His Eminence received a telegram from the Pope, asking him to withdraw support from Archbishop Hannan’s proposal?” Unhesitatingly he replied, “No, it is not true at all.”

When L’Osservatore Romano appeared on the newsstand several hours later, it carried word that Pope Paul had already decided that the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World merited his approval, and would be voted on and promulgated at the Public Session on the following day, December 7.