Catholic Debate Research Articles

Catholics debate papal nuclear shift

Earlier statements by Pope John Paul II implied a grudging acceptance of deterrence. But a recent change in the Pope's thinking has given hope to U.S. bishops who would like to condemn nuclear deterrence outright.

The Cross, the Flag, and the Bomb: American Catholics Debate War and Peace, 1960-1983

The Cross, the Flag, and the Bomb: American Catholics Debate War and Peace, 1960-1983

The Cross, the Flag, and the Bomb: American Catholics Debate War and Peace, 1960-1983

Journal Article The Cross, the Flag, and the Bomb: American Catholics Debate War and Peace, 1960–1983. By William A. Au. (Westport: Greenwood, 1985. xviii + 278 pp. Notes, bibliographical essay, and index. $29.95.) Get access Anne Klejment Anne Klejment College of St. Thomas Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of American History, Volume 73, Issue 1, June 1986, Pages 251–252, https://doi.org/10.2307/1903724 Published: 01 June 1986

Abortion: The Catholic Debate in America by Hans Lotstra. Irvington Publishers, Inc., New York, 1985.

Book reviewed in this article:ABORTION: THE CATHOLIC DEBATE IN AMERICA by Hans Lotstra.FOUNDATIONS FOR A SOCIAL THEOLOGY by Dermot A. Lane.CHRISTIAN ORIGINS by Christopher Rowland.HUMBERT OF ROMANS: HIS LIFE AND VIEWS OF THIRTEENTH‐CENTURY SOCIETY, by Edward Tracy Brett.NINETEENTH‐CENTURY RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN THE WEST, Vol II, ed. Ninian Smart et al.LAW IN PAUL'S THOUGHT BY Hans HübnerLUTHER'S THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS by Alister E. McGrath.STUDIES IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK. Martin Hengel. Translated by John Bowden.FEMINIST INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE edited by Letty M. Russell.

Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear War: The Shape of the Catholic Debate

ARGUMENT ABOUT nuclear policy has been a fact of public life in the West since the awesome power at the heart of matter was first unleashed during the Second World War. This debate has assumed a number of distinct forms, which have been influenced by the political climate prevailing between the superpowers, by the state of relations between members of the Atlantic Alliance, by the development of new technological capacities, by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and by the level of public awareness and understanding of nuclear-policy questions. Recent events suggest that the state of the nuclear question is assuming a distinctive form in the present moment. US/USSR relations are at a most delicate and dangerous point. Tensions have increased significantly in the aftermath of Soviet actions in Afghanistan and Poland. These tensions are reflected in the US Senate's nonratification of the SALT II treaty and in the acrimonious exchanges at the Helsinki Accord review conference in Madrid. At the same time, the two sets of negotiations which have recently begun in Geneva on strategic-arms reductions and on the control of intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe have opened at least a slim possibility of new developments in arms-control policy. The new state of the question is also shaped by the significant strains which have recently developed within NATO. A significant intellectual debate has begun within the Alliance about the wisdom of a NATO declaratory policy renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons. Further, technological developments have created the possibility of deploying formidable new first-strike weapons, such as MX and Trident II, and weapons which are difficult to detect both before and after they are launched, such as the cruise missile. Possession and deployment of such

Justification Today: the Roman Catholic and Anglican debate. By R. G. England. (Latimer Studies, 4.) Pp. 40. Oxford: Latimer House, 1979. 75p.

Justification Today: the Roman Catholic and Anglican debate. By R. G. England. (Latimer Studies, 4.) Pp. 40. Oxford: Latimer House, 1979. 75p.

Justification Today: The Roman catholic and Anglican Debate. By R. G. England. Latimer Studies 4. Oxford: Latimer House, 1979. 40. pp. $75.

Justification Today: The Roman catholic and Anglican Debate. By R. G. England. Latimer Studies 4. Oxford: Latimer House, 1979. 40. pp. $75.

Topoiof religious controversy in the American Catholic debate over vernacular reform

This essay proposes that arguments used popularly in religious controversies are historically stable and that rhetorical critics’ attention to the special, material sources of reference for argumentation enhances the analysis of such controversies. Examining the public debate over vernacular reform, 1953–68, the essay emphasizes the relatively narrow range of topics reflected in argumentative invention during a representative and recent controversy.

The CIIR and Louis Allen

In the concluding paragraphs of his open letter to the Catholic Institute for International Relations, Mr Allen notes that ‘the ultimate objective of the Palestinians is said to be “a non-Zionist, Arab-Jewish state in the whole of what was once Palestine”. This means the ultimate objective of the Palestinians is still the destruction of the state of Israel as it now is’ (my italics). Mr Allen clearly implies that individuals and organisations who subscribe to the objective of destroying the state of Israel as it now is cannot be considered legitimate parties to a Catholic debate on the Middle East conflict and the desired future for the Israel’- Jewish and Palestinian-Arab peoples. Mr Allen is a Catholic and he questions whether the CIIR is voicing a legitimate Catholic position on the question of the Middle East conflict presumably because Comment 19 either states or implies the desirability of destroying the state of Israel as it now is.Israeli-Jews, as a rule, are not too well informed of Christian history and more often than not betray unforgiveable ignorance of the development of Catholicism. I am no exception, yet, given my limited knowledge, I would be surprised to find a Catholic consensus that state-worship constitutes part of the Catholic spirit or dogma. I would rather have thought that Catholics, like people of any other religion, might have been expected to oppose any insinuation that unconditional acceptance of the existence of any state as it now is, irrespective of its policies and history, should constitute a condition sine qua non for a legitimate ethical-political discussion. I would further like to state at the outset that in terms of my own political ethics, no ethical discussion of the political domain can take place unless it involves a critical scrutiny of any existing state in the light of its history and de facto policies and can thus decide in each case whether one can justify support for its continued existence. This is as true of the state of Israel as it is of the Vatican State.