The Spider's WebPart I |
|
The announcement had all the appearances of a routine press release - which it was not. An ad hoc committee appointed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) is to review and study more fully the "strictly conditioned moral acceptance" of deterrence as stated in the 1983 pastoral "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response." Joseph Cardinal Bernardin will chair the committee that includes John Cardinal O'Connor, New York: Archbishops Roger Mahony, Los Angeles, and John Roach, St. Paul-Minneapolis; Bishop Daniel Reilly, Norwich, Conn.; Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Detroit. Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, secretary for the Department of Social Development and World Peace for the U.S. Catholic Conference (civic arm of the NCCB) will serve as staff. (The majority of these appointees served on the original committee that produced the peace pastoral. Mahony is new and Roach, while new to the committee, as president of the NCCB at the time, made the original appointments.) Behind this Jan. 27th, 1986 announcement lies three years of planning, pressure, and publicity engineered by the Pax Christi U.S.A. branch of the pacifist, nonviolent international Catholic peace movement, which boasts a considerable following among U.S. bishops. The scenario begins in March prior to the May 3rd, 1983 episcopal conference approval of the pastoral when Pax Christi urged its members to mail postcards to their bishops "expressing encouragement for the direction of the pastoral" (Pax Christi Bulletin, March, 1983). Immediately after approval, Pax Christi took full credit for "this most significant document" in spite of some reservation: "In one sense we were there at the beginning. It was one of our Pax Christi bishop members who, after consultation with others, made the strong appeal which led to the decision to prepare" the pastoral. Bishop Gumbleton "our national president" was named to (the ad hoc committee. "If this was intended (as most assume it was) to assure that evangelical pacifism and nonviolence would be given proper representation, he performed this service well." His contribution, however, "went far beyond this. Other Pax Christi bishop members continued to provide assistance and support, but it was he who carried the bail in the actual committee deliberations and who prepared and submitted some of the most important recommendations to be incorporated into the final text. "Response to the frequent appeals to members to contact their own bishops to express continuing interest and support by means of letters or personal visits may have contributed to the depth of episcopal involvement that was so clearly demonstrated at the November (1982) and May (1983) meetings. "Now an even greater task lies ahead. Pax Christi must assume a share of the responsibility for making the pastoral and its teachings known and must do everything possible to win their acceptance by the broader Catholic community. "Although it has weaknesses and shortcomings from our point of view, it is the best there is and deserving of whatever efforts we expend on its behalf. If nothing else, it provides us with a solid platform from which we can proceed to build the deeper and more comprehensive commitment to peace and nonviolence" (Pax Christi Bulletin, June, 1983, emphasis added). STRATEGY PLANNED This euphoria, if such it was, was short-lived. By December, 1983 Pax Christi had initiated a program to alter the NCCB's position on deterrence. It established a "Blue Ribbon Panel to monitor U.S. weapons policies" and to send "periodic reports" to the Bishops "who, in their letter said they can only tolerate deterrence as a transitional strategy and then only so long as serious efforts are made to reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals" (Bulletin, December, 1983). The phrase "strictly conditioned moral acceptance of nuclear deterrence' ' in para. 186 of the pastoral provided the base for this maneuver. The opportunity was provided in para. 196: "The need to rethink the deterrence policy of our nation . . . will demand a substantial intellectual, political, and moral effort." According to the April, 1984 Pax Christi Bulletin its "Blue Ribbon Panel of nationally recognized people to monitor arms production" in light of the pastoral "will identify changes in the U.S. nuclear arsenal so that everyone can decide whether the Bishops' conditions are being met, or whether the conditional acceptance of deterrence will have to turn to outright rejection" (emphasis added). In other words, a consensus to determine what posture our national defense policies should take. PRESSURE BEGINS The September, 1984 Bulletin announcing this report "The Peace Pastoral: Its Promise and Impact" included the instruction: "Please use this statement to enter into dialog with others concerning whether the 'strict conditions' are met or will be met. (What is the time frame for meeting the conditions that make deterrence acceptable?) Share the assessment with your bishop." In the March 1985 Bulletin, additional plans to increase pressure on individual bishops were announced: "When the U.S. Bishops meet in Collegeville, Minn., in June, it is expected that some Pax Christi bishops will ask the conference for an updated moral judgment on deterrence. Please try to write or visit your bishop in the next few months, requesting that the provisional acceptance of deterrence contained in The Challenge of Peace be re-examined in light of continuing escalation of nuclear weapons by our country. (Moral acceptability depended on the fact that the deterrent was seen only as a step toward disarmament.)" In June 1985, Pax Christi took its concept of monitoring U.S. weapons policies one step further. It recommended that the NCCB through its civic arm, USCC, set up a "select committee of 'blue ribbon' objective experts charged with the task of producing annual reports of advances and setbacks, taking the Bishops' 'not-so-strict' conditions as its standard of measurement." This Bulletin disclosed that the Bishops had refused to consider a similar proposal to monitor progress in arms reduction, when it was made originally during debate on the pastoral. The September, 1985 Bulletin featured a full page special appeal: "Contact Your Bishop - When the National Conference of Catholic Bishops meet in Washington in November, a group of bishops will attempt to have the entire conference re-evaluate and withdraw its provisional moral acceptance of the U.S. nuclear deterrence policy. Pax Christi members are urged to write their local bishops and to Bishop James Malone, c/o Diocese of Youngstown (144 W. Wood St., Youngstown, Ohio, 44503), urging a re-evaluation of the deterrence stance." A letter sent by Pax Christi Metro New York to some 13 bishops in the dioceses of New York, Brooklyn, and Rockville Center was printed as a sample (emphasis added). PRESSURE SUCCEEDS In the December, 1985 Bulletin, Bishop Gumbleton reported the effort made by Pax Christi bishops for an "updating on our judgment about deterrence" was successful. At a closed session it was decided to "set up a committee charged with the responsibility to report to the Conference on what the factual situation is: Is the U.S. 'deterrent minimal' and is it 'transitional'? Are we actually using the deterrent as a step toward disarmament?" He continued: "Clearly this is what Bishop Dingman wisely asked for in 1983 when our pastoral letter was proposed. It has taken us two-and-a-half years to address this question, but the momentum is building and finally we soon will have a committee in place to evaluate the morality of the deterrence policy." Then he added. "Thanks to all who wrote to their bishops supporting the intervention." The pressure that had been applied to the bishops over this period by Pax Christi membership had paid off. The Pax Christi January-February "Peaceweaving" pamphlet recommended an immediate follow-up: "Thank your bishop for voting to form a committee to study whether the nation's nuclear deterrence can still be judged moral. Tell him you are anxious to know who is on that committee and when it will render an opinion." This then, is the background - the what went on behind the scene - on the appointment of the ad hoc committee to review the peace pastoral's judgment on deterrence as it was disclosed in Pax Christi Bulletins. The only appointee on the evaluation committee without tangible connections to Pax Christi is John O'Connor - a ratio of 4 to 1. ANATOMY OF A DEATH-WISH The March, 1986 Bulletin notes that "Pax Christi has already rendered a judgment on deterrence. In its 1985 Assessment Statement on the pastoral, Pax Christi concluded that based on the Bishops' criteria, the U.S. deterrence policy is immoral.... Asked what would happen if the committee finds current deterrence policy immoral. Bishop Gumbleton said such a finding would have 'very serious implications' for the Catholic population. Some of the ramifications might include questioning work in defense plants, service in the military, payment of taxes." Its Bulletins leave no doubt this operation has been produced, directed, and stage-managed by Pax Christi (emphasis added). In January 1983, prior to the Bishops' vote on the peace pastoral, then Cardinal-elect Bernardin and Archbishop Roach as representatives of the U.S. Episcopal Conference met at the Vatican with representatives from European Bishops' conferences who had raised questions about the U.S. pastoral. One of the questions pertained to deterrence, another to the authority of episcopal conferences. On the latter point there was agreement that a distinction should be made between statements of principle and prudential judgments in regard to episcopal statements. On deterrence it was agreed to adopt the basic principle Pope John Paul II had stated in his address to the UN special Session on Disarmament in June 1982. This appears in para. 173 of the U.S. Bishops' peace pastoral, "In current conditions "deterrence' based on balance, not certainly as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless, in order to ensure peace ....it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion." Then, following several paragraphs (177-185) relating the Holy Father's "general statements to the specific policies of the U.S. deterrent" the U.S. Bishops give their opinion: "These considerations of concrete elements of nuclear deterrence policy, made in light of (Pope) John Paul 11's evaluation, hut applying it through our own prudential judgment, lead us to a strictly conditioned moral acceptance of nuclear deterrence. We cannot consider it adequate as a long-term basis for peace" (186). In this conclusion, the phrase to which Pax Christi bishops now take exception (the best they could get at the time, according to Gumbleton) is qualified by the "prudential judgment" of the bishops, thus distinguishing it from a statement of principle as discussed at the Vatican meeting. John O'Connor, member of the ad hoc committee and then Bishop of Scranton, PA explained to the Catholics in his diocese that prudential moral judgments "made by the Bishops themselves" deserve "respectful consideration but (are) not necessarily binding in conscience." He told them, "The Bishops are moral teachers and honest teaching requires careful distinctions between what binds in conscience and what is still open to discussion." EUROPEAN CONFERENCES' REALISTIC APPROACH Other episcopal conferences, notably the German and French, published pastoral letters on peace and war during 1983. The German, "Out of Justice, Peace" in April; the French, "Winning the Peace" in November. Both are written with a clarity and realism not found in their American counterpart. Both address issues the U.S. document does not mention. Specifically, 1) the danger of blackmail should the Soviets achieve nuclear superiority and 2) Marxist-Leninist ideology. The following excerpts are offered as examples of their realism:
THE PRIMATE OF ENGLAND CONCURS Also in November 1983, the Primate of England, Basil Cardinal Hume, in a letter on nuclear morality that appeared in the London Times expressed concern about "nuclear blackmail" and gave very strong support to "deterrence." He observed that "the peace movements bring pressure to bear primarily on the governments of the West and not those of the East. In Communist regimes, movements critical of official policy are rarely tolerated. There are different perceptions in East and West about the threat of peace." While not condoning the use of nuclear arms, he said, "to abandon them without adequate safeguards may help to destabilize the existing situation and many dramatically increase the risk of nuclear blackmail." (Emphasis added). After quoting Pope John Paul 11's statement on "deterrence based on balance" given at the UN, Hume observed, "every Catholic bishops' conference pronouncing subsequently on these issues has followed this judgment." The Cardinal then said, "as an authoritative pronouncement of the Holy Father, it is an important contribution to Catholic thinking. In the first place, this view recognizes that, because of the world situation, deterrence may be accepted as the lesser of two evils, without in any way regarding it as good in itself." The English Primate argued in support of deterrence throughout his letter. U.S. PASTORAL DISTORTS PAPAL POSITION In the United States there are influential bishops, predominantly Pax Christi, arguing against deterrence. They have subjected the "authoritative pronouncement" of Pope John Paul II to their own "prudential judgment" - and found it wanting. And they have succeeded in getting it on the agenda for the Bishops' meeting in November 1986 with the hope that the U.S. episcopal conference will reject deterrence as morally acceptable. To reject deterrence is to choose unilateral disarmament. In their 1985 "Assessment Statement," Pax Christi concluded "the conditions required by the Holy Father and the Bishops for morally acceptable deterrence are now absent." This is not a new stance for Pax Christi - committed as it is to pacifism, nonviolence, and disarmament (o! the U.S.). Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, president of Pax Christi USA and its most vocal spokesman, believes non-violence is "the way of resistance against (the) immoral posture of deterrence that is the stated policy of our government." In an interview with U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 20th, 1982, he was asked: "Would you deem it preferable for Russia to dominate the U.S. and the West rather than for those democracies to possess and use nuclear weapons in self-defense?" To which he replied: "It would be preferable to me; and not only preferable, but it is the only choice I could make - to choose to do what is right, even if it means the loss of my freedom." In the same interview, given after the debate on the second draft of the Peace Pastoral, Archbishop Philip Hannan, New Orleans, who does not share Gumbleton's views, was questioned: "Some say that the Catholic Church could be accused of moral indifference if it failed to take a stand on the question of nuclear war" - to which he gave the forthright reply: "I'm all for taking a stand on the basis of the Holy Father's statements. My proposition was to take as our own the words of our Holy Father on disarmament given to the United Nations. But this Pastoral Letter distorts them." This is exactly where the German and French conferences took their stand. Only the NCCB, outflanked by Pax Christi bishops, elected to second guess the Holy Father's "authoritative pronouncement." IN CADENCE WITH ANTI-DEFENSE NETWORK The 1985 "Assessment Statement" identifies Defense Monitor as a source it uses for information on U.S. defense capabilities. This is a concrete example of Pax Christi collaboration with the radical left anti-defense establishment propagandizing to disarm the West. Pax Christi's extensive connections with the radical left extend to and include the Soviet-controlled international Communist front organization, World Peace Council. A previous report, "Pax Christi, Dividing the Church" (The Wanderer, April 14th, 1983), documents these connections. The present report is, in a sense, a continuation of the previous one. The Center for Defense Information, publisher of Defense Monitor, is an offshoot of the radical left Fund for Peace and is interlocked with the radical left Institute for Policy Studies, all prominent in the Washington anti-defense lobby. The Defense Monitor contains the results of the Center's research and analysis of U.S. military programs, strategy, and weapons development - all from a negative point of view. In 1983, the Center director, retired Rear Admiral Gene La Rocque, was denounced by 575 U.S. Navy admirals for his leftist, anti-military views and for his appearance on Soviet television opposing President Reagan's defense policies and praising those of the Soviet Union. Seven of the eight then-living retired chiefs of naval operations signed a Full page ad that appeared in The Washington Times. Pax Christi, as further evidence of its collaboration, included in a January-February, 1986 mailing, a set of postcards imprinted with the logo and identification "CDI, Center for Defense Information." The recipient was to sign and mail them to the President, both senators and Congressmen urging the U.S. to join the USSR in a "mutual moratorium coupled with treaty negotiations" to "end all nuclear explosions for all time." This CDI action and Pax Christi complicity was put in proper focus in the February, 1986 newsletter. High Frontier, published by retired Army General Daniel Graham, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and recognized authority on the Strategic Defense Initiative who enjoys the esteem of his fellow officers. His newsletter stated: "GDI's current campaign to end all nuclear explosions is intended to forestall development of the x-ray laser component of SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative)." The Center for Defense Information's propaganda line claims the Strategic Defense initiative will give the U.S. a first-strike advantage. The truth of the matter is this U.S. initiative is primarily a non-nuclear defense system - a space shield against incoming nuclear weapons. It is a deterrent against an avowed Marxist-Leninist enemy bent on world conquest. Not surprising, considering its general attitude toward U.S. defense capabilities. Pax Christi's 1985 "Assessment" describes the so-called Star Wars Program "an especially dangerous escalation." Also not surprising is its acknowledged source, the Union of Concerned Scientists. This leftist group is comprised principally of peace activists who stand in opposition to all U.S. strategic proposals. According to an NC News release July, 1985, Cardinal Bernardin has expressed his "misgivings" on SDI. "He acknowledged that the objectives of such a system are desirable because they target weapons, not people and reduce the incentives to use nuclear weapons, but said many experts fear the system might generate a new arms race." Regrettably he elected not to identify the "experts." PATCHES IN A "SEAMLESS GARMENT" The Peace Pastoral approved by the U.S. Bishops May 3rd, 1983, accompanied as it had been by extensive media coverage, failed to muster the anticipated support. Any "sense of urgency" was soon dissipated. This was attributed in part to the presidential campaign and in part to the fact neither the Hierarchy nor the laity measured abortion and nuclear issues with the same yardstick. As the Pax Christi 1985 "Assessment" observed: "The criticism several bishops directed at pro-choice positions" during the 1984 election year had the effect of relegating the arms race to "a secondary position when it came to moral urgency." (Pro-lifers, it will be recalled, were very active during the campaign.) Even though the NCCB leadership sought to mend fences and correct any thought the Bishops were "dictating how one should vote," the overall effect was "one of clear division in the Church." From Pax Christi's point of view, however, as expressed in its 1985 "Assessment," "this struggle" did produce a "beneficial gift," one that provided a "vision which challenged both people and leadership (read the Bishops) to recognize the consistency of a full pro-life ethic." And the gift? "The articulation of a 'seamless garment ethic' by Cardinal Bernardin . . ." in an address delivered at Fordham University Dec. 6th, 1983. If this was calculated to throw the pro-life forces into disarray, and there is every indication it was, it was most successful. After Bernardin made headlines with the "seamless garment ethic" Pax Christi took credit for its origin and published the full statement "The Protection of All Human Life" in its January-February, 1984 Bulletin. This statement juxtaposes abortion and warfare. Emphasis is not primarily on abortion but only as it is equated with war - thus diluting the abortion issue. The June, 1985 Bulletin reiterated, "Bernardin did not originate the phrase." That "distinction belongs to Eileen Egan" a member of the Pax Christi National Council "who First used the phrase in its current context" in 1981. It then printed a portion of the original:
The formation of a group, Pro-Lifers for Survival, in Erie, Pa., has helped perpetuate the hoax. The founder, Pax Christi member Juli Loesch, is an occasional writer on "peace issues" for the National Catholic Register. HE "SEAMLESS GARMENT" IS ELASTICIZED With all the appearances of a political maneuver, Oct. 23rd, 1984 just a few weeks before the election, 23 Pax Christi bishops moved into the fray with a signed statement, initiated by Bishops Gumbleton and Matthiesen (Amarillo, Texas), that declared "one cannot examine abortion as though that were the only moral issue facing the people. These Pax Christi bishops publicly rejected arguments made by other Catholic prelates that the nuclear arms race " is something more remote and less certain an evil than abortion." They were ' 'gravely concerned that the threat of nuclear war (was) being neglected." This public disclosure of a division within the episcopal conference was an admission, however unstated, that the "seamless garment ethic" had not worn as well as anticipated. At a news conference, Gumbleton said, "We don't want to give the impression that there is one bloc of bishops against another." The Bishops, he said, "were together on the moral principles but in some cases split on the tactics of pursuing (their) social agenda." Not at all dissuaded, Pax Christi moved to expand the circumference of the garment.
SHOCKING EXCHANGE AND CRUCIAL ADMISSION Nowhere has Pax Christi's spider web of disinformation been more pronounced than in its support of the Communist takeover of Nicaragua. This web was brought into sharp focus during the MacNeil-Lehrer televised news hour March 4th, 1986 that produced such a shocking exchange between Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary of state for Inter-American Affairs and Bishop Gumbleton. Abrams read a quotation from the Carnegie Endowment on International Peace - testimony given that day before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the repression of the Catholic Church in Nicaragua: "The Sandinistas have banned national television of the Catholic Mass, shut down the Catholic radio station, suppressed the Catholic Church newspaper, confiscated its printing press, seized the Church social welfare office, illegally drafted seminarians, imprisoned and deported priests, prevented the establishment of a Church human-rights office, prohibited open-air Masses, and hampered the Church's capacity to teach, minister, and proselytize. Two Social Christian Party activists were brutally murdered in November, one after being tortured." Gumbleton vehemently denied the accuracy of the report. He said the U.S. was on "the side of the tyrant," and "the government in Nicaragua is not a Marxist-Leninist government." Abrams found this "incredible" and countered: "All of the nine comandantes - in the junta - are Marxist-Leninists. This is a government closely allied to the Soviets and the Cubans." To which Gumbleton rejoined: "(Foreign Minister) Miguel d'Escoto is a Roman Catholic priest, a personal friend of mine. He is not a Marxist-Leninist." When Abrams told Gumbleton, ' 'You do not speak for Cardinal Obando, nor does he share your view...," Gumbleton retorted, "You don't have to tell me who is the Church of Nicaragua. It's not Cardinal Obando. The Church are (sic) the people. That's who the Church is." While he inveighs against nonmilitary aid for the contra freedom fighters (which the NCCB also opposes) Gumbleton is busily collaborating with the Quixote Center "Quest for Peace" campaign to raise $27 million for the Sandinista regime. This way, he says, we can "offer our hand in peace to people who have been battered and killed by the violent policies of our government." In a recent editorial, the Arizona Republic mused over the "good Bishop's moral dilemma. He opposes as a matter of principle sending nonmilitary, nonlethal aid to an armed force (contras), yet he is ready, even eager to send similar aid to the Sandinistas. "Does the Bishop "not recognize that the Sandinistas have raised the largest army in Central America.... Does not the Sandinista army constitute 'an armed force' in the Bishop's view of the world?" THE PEACE PEOPLE NETWORK A Quixote Center appeal for the $27 million dollars for the Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas blatantly declares in a mailing sent to readers of the National Catholic Reporter, "Your government is lying to you." This Center which subsists to a large extent on grants from Religious communities is an offshoot of the Jesuit Center of Concern. Central America is one of its principal interests. It is of the same mindset as Pax Christi and both have attracted support from Religious communities here and in Nicaragua (emphasis added). Gumbleton, in a fund-raising appeal for this same $27 million, mentions: "In the past two years, in the name of the Religious orders of this country, they have gathered and shipped over $13 million in medical supplies for distribution in Nicaragua through the careful auspices of the Religious orders of that country" (emphasis added). In the Abrams-Gumbleton debate reported above, he revealed: "We have Religious communities throughout the whole country of Nicaragua who report to us the atrocities" committed by the contras. He relies, he said, on Witness for Peace that has had "thousands of people from this country" go there "to see what is happening" and "we also have the Religious communities. . . ." "STOP THE LIES" Witness for Peace, organized after the "triumph" of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista revolution in 1979, is a coalition of anti-defense pacifists who have an abiding distrust of the United States. They praise the "vital presence of Christian alongside socialist ideals in the Central American revolution." They deplore the "mindless life-destroying military intervention that is the key clement in our country's foreign relations" and they are committed to an "unrelenting nonviolent struggle" against it. Their goal is for "fundamental change" in our country: they believe Nicaragua "is the future of Latin America." They have sent hundreds to visit Nicaragua who, as Gumbleton disclosed, "report to us." These reports on "the war between the people of Nicaragua and the counterrevolutionaries (contras)," with constant reference to "killed by contras, assiduously avoid any mention of Communism as the root cause of the continuing conflict. Pax Christi endorses Witness for Peace as it endorses an "Invasion Contingency Plan" should the U.S. invade Nicaragua. This plan for "massive public resistance," including "nonviolent civil disobedience" is to be coordinated with "our friends in Nicaragua." Witness for Peace will be the contact. Another facet of this plan is the Pledge of Resistance network with "will be activated to stop" U.S. military action. In fact, today, wherever there is religious involvement in disruptive protesting on defense policies look for the long arm of Pax Christi. Be it the Sanctuary Movement, the arrest of nuns at the State Department, sit-ins at senators' offices, snarling traffic at busy intersections or the recently formed Crosses of Sorrow and Hope. This latest campaign, planned for the 1986 election year culminating at the end of November, involves the placement of crosses marked with the names of alleged contra victims in various locations across the country. Gumbleton carried this symbol in inaugurating this protest during congressional debate on aid to the Nicaraguan freedom-fighters in March 1986. The written plea read by Gumbleton on the steps of the Capitol in Washington included the slogan of this newest grouping: "In the name of God - stop the lies - stop the killing." BUILDINC A "PEACE" CHURCH In an adroit move in 1985, Pax Christi transferred its national office to Erie, PA, where there is a community of Benedictine Sisters. Mary Lou Kownacki, O.S.B., the new National coordinator, is one of three Benedictines on the staff. The Benedictines were most cooperative. They donated a computer and printer to the new office and, according to the 1985 financial report a Benedictine Appeal garnered $6,185 in new income for Pax Christi USA. In addition, the prioress of this community, Joan Chittister O.S.B., writes a column for the Pax Christi Bulletin and is a frequent contributor to National Catholic Reporter where she serves on the Board of Directors. Needless to say, Pax Christi enjoys excellent coverage in its pages. Representatives of Religious communities have a high profile in the program of Pax Christi, the largest Catholic "peace" organization in the United States. Kathleen Priutt, C.S.J.P., is on the National council along with Mary Lou Kownacki, O.S.B.; Mary Evelyn Jegen, S.N.D., is vice president of Pax Christi International; Mary Catherine Shambour, O.S.B., is Pax Christi representative on the International East-West Commission; Mary Beth Reissen, S.S.N.D., is UN representative of Pax Christi International. While purporting to work for a "humane social order," Pax Christi spokesmen denounce our government as a "tyrant" that "lies to us" and hold the absurd opinion: "We should bear in mind that the assumption that the USSR intends to take over the U.S. is only that - an assumption." The author of these words, Mary Catherine Shambour, O.S.B., then cites Soviet arms control proposals (showing their good faith) which we have not considered (showing our bad faith) without mentioning any initiatives or recommendations on the part of our government (March, 1986 Bulletin). In less than a year, Pax Christi experienced a 45% growth in local groups. Membership is now over 10,000 - representing all 50 states. This, presumably, could be attributed to the closer association with a Religious community and the contacts it generated. Be that as it may, the invitation Pax Christi sent to Religious communities to become corporate sponsors for a membership contribution of $100-$500 per year was most successful. The March 1986 Bulletin lists the Religious communities that have accepted the invitation - a total of 145 individual communities from California to New Hampshire, Texas to Minnesota. A random selection of these "Peace People" as Pax Christi describes them includes: Capuchins, Jesuits, Benedictines, School Sisters of St. Francis, Franciscan Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of Mercy, Daughters of Charity, Dominican Sisters, Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of Charity, Brothers of the Christian Schools. This calculated effort to bring Religious communities into the Pax Christi fold should be recognized for what it is intended to do: create a network to further its "ultimate goal to build a peace church from the grass-roots." The Peace Pastoral is also intended to serve this goal. In fact, they boast: the peace church is the goal of all their projects.
Under a banner heading, "What We're Doing to Build a Peace Church," Pax Christi published a capsule review of its current activities which included much that has been covered in this report: cooperation with the Center for Defense Information; affiliation with Pledge of Resistance: a Central America network in the States and abroad, and, under "disarmament. Keeping the Challenge of Peace Alive," said the copies of the 1985 Assessment Statement were sent to all bishops. This Assessment however, is a "slightly altered version" of the Peace Pastoral Assessment written by Fr. Francis X. Meehan and printed in the September, 1985 Bulletin. In other words, it had been laundered slightly. These alterations are significant inasmuch as there were several thoughts it must have decided were better left unsaid at this time in view of its overall objective to have the U.S. episcopal conference declare that "deterrence" could no longer be considered a moral issue. For instance: the Bishops will not read the following sentence which appears in the original: "Undoubtedly it is not easy to pinpoint who is more the villain, the U.S. or the USSR." The restructured sentence reads: "There is, of course, the claim of the government that whatever hardness there may be in the U.S. negotiating posture, it is a necessity given the Soviets' aggressive buildup as well as their rigidity in negotiations." Nor will the Bishops read the significant sentence at the end of the paragraph on the "seamless garment ethic" which has been eliminated: "I suspect that in the long run it is peace values which benefit most from this challenge to crisscross the issues, since the anti-abortion movement already has had a stronger hold on the moral consciousness of traditional Catholics." And again, the Bishops will not read the reluctant admission of a lack of interest in the work of the Bernardin Committee found in the original and completely omitted in the altered version including the following information some may not have appreciated: Within the Church there are many signs of hope, not the least of which is the very legitimation of the subject (i.e., the arms race to nuclear disaster) as a point of moral discussion. The structure of diocese and school systems have at least been penetrated" (emphasis added). Penetrate? The word that means to have an effect throughout; to spread through: to permeate. It says so very much. "SO SUSCEPTIBLE TO MANIPULATION" Diocesan justice and peace offices, one of the products of the radical left-oriented "Call to Action" Program the Bishops sponsored in 1976, are now so numerous that the directors have their own "round-table" coordinating meetings. At a recent four-day session (Feb. 23rd-26th) in Washington, D.C., they were addressed by both Bishop Malone, NCCB president and Fr. Bryan Hehir, Social Development and World Peace Department secretary of the USCC, the civic arm of the conference. According to diocesan newspaper reports, these conference spokesmen said. "the Peace Pastoral, the Economic Pastoral, and the Bishop's consistent ethic of life statements provide a theological framework from which the Catholic Church in the United States can speak out on political issues." Legislative briefings were also held "on the federal budget, tax issues, food and agriculture, health and welfare, Latin America, Africa, arms control, and international economic issues." And time was allotted for visits to congressional offices where the episcopal (and Pax Christi) stand on "not giving military aid to the contras" was imparted. There should be little doubt these issues will be routed via (the local parish justice and peace committees to the people in the pews as the network's spider web expands. Penetration of the diocesan school system has been accomplished through the indoctrination of the Religious teaching Sisters abetted by the National Catholic Education Association and by the introduction of "peace studies" into the curriculum using titles such as Pax Christi's "A Race To Nowhere: An Arms Race Primer For Catholics." The major emphasis here as in so many of these hooks is on disarmament (of the U.S.). nonviolence, and pacifism. The National Catholic Reporter, March 28th, 1986 featured a special supplement "Teaching Justice and Peace." A Benedictine Sister involved in "peace teaching" in Kansas City, KS compiled this selection of materials for all levels of Catholic education. It is replete with titles from Pax Christi and authors associated with it. The initiative for this new discipline is found in the Peace Pastoral: "We urge every diocese and parish to implement balanced and objective educational programs" so people at all age levels "will better understand the issues of war and peace" (p. 280). Pax Christi, however, is neither balanced nor objective as this report clearly indicates. What this report does indicate, however, gives credence to the conclusion reached in the recently published, well documented book, Education for Disaster, The Nuclear Specter in America's Classrooms: "What Pax Christi is advocating is actually a thinly disguised Pax Sovieticus exactly identical with the Marxist-Leninist definition of peace - that condition which will obtain when the forces of capitalism and imperialism have ceased to struggle" (By Thomas B. Smith, United Communications of America, 1985, p. 45). Words Pope John Paul II spoke at the International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands, May 13th. 1985 are apropos for those who have the mind and heart to listen:
STRANGLEHOLD ON THE The issues raised in this report: the Pax Christi handcrafted "seamless garment" hoax; the Pax Christi support of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas in Nicaragua; the Pax Christi attack on the Strategic Defense Initiative: and, especially the Pax Christi control of the Peace Pastoral process, supply verifiable evidence of the influence it exerts over the U.S. Episcopal Conference. This report has chronicled from Pax Christi's own publications, its involvement in the Pastoral "from the beginning"; how it took the best it could get at the time and immediately started to chip away on the matter of deterrence until it succeeded in having the NCCB appoint a committee (a committee it controls) to review this issue of strategic importance to the survival of the free world. In addition, it has already rendered its verdict, contradicting Pope John Paul 11's enunciation of the principle of deterrence based on balance." This report has also proved to be an illustration of the inherent danger Cardinal Ratzinger foresaw in a minority with a predetermined objective gaining control of an episcopal conference to further their own aims. He wrote in The Ratzinger Report:
This does not have to be. The Catholic Church in the United States does not have to be held hostage by a group of avowed pacifists who inveigh against our country while sowing seeds of distrust and confusion; who second guess the Holy Father's authoritative pronouncement on "deterrence based on balance." In the message to the UN Special Session on Disarmament in 1982 wherein he made this pronouncement, the Holy Father also carefully outlined the Church's position:
We have an obligation in Christian charity, for the sake of our children and grandchildren and in keeping with our own responsibility, to advise our ordinaries and other prelates in the hierarchical structure of the Church that we are distressed at what is taking place - that we know Pax Christi has already rendered its verdict on deterrence and has every intention of imposing its opinion on the Bishops of this country. Our duty is to respectfully remind the Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States of their obligation as Successors of the Apostles to steadfastly uphold the authoritative pronouncement about deterrence given by Pope John Paul II, the Successor of Peter. This Papal principle is a realistic assessment of the Vatican II position on "disarmament not unilaterally indeed but at an equal rate on all sides. ..." (from the Church in the Modem World, chapter 5, sec. I, para. 82). The U.S. episcopal conference in keeping with this Vatican position declared in a Pastoral in 1968 that: "The Council did not call for unilateral disarmament; Christian morality is not lacking in realism." Now the point has been reached when the Bishops of France in upholding Pope John Paul II are compelled to say: "If the Church speaks in this way it is not without reason. Only a defensive posture allows for the legitimation of this mortal game being played out at the gates of Hell." The Spider's Web The U.S. policy of deterrence has been targeted by Pax Christi since, at least 1976. A testimonial prepared at that time for the NCCB "Call To Action" Conference in Detroit urged Catholics to "disassociate themselves from the policy of deterrence"; it described unilateral disarmament as "the profoundest morality"; and it asked "our fellow Catholic - so many of them unaware of the military stance of our nation - to consider how difficult, even impossible, reconciliation can be when people of the world know that what we have in mind for them, if they become our enemies is mass cremation." This biased and blatantly false assertion appeared in the Pax Christi statement titled "Bicentennial America: Thou Shall Not Overkill." It was endorsed by some 400 members including Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit. In the February 1983 issue of Nuclear Times a radical left anti-nuclear magazine, Sr. Mary Evelyn Jegen, SND (at that time on the Pax Christi Executive Council and presently International Vice-president) disclosed that "in 1981 we made a strong case for a Pax Christi leader-bishop' to be on the Bishop's committee (writing "The Challenge of Peace ..." pastoral). Bishop Gumbleton has been our vehicle for getting our views to the committee." As shown in the previous documentation, Bishop Gumbleton has been instrumental from the beginning in the development of the pastoral, having "prepared and submitted some of the most important recommendations to be incorporated into the final text . - . Although it has weaknesses and shortcomings from our point of view, it is the best there is and deserving of whatever efforts we expend on its behalf. If nothing else it provides us with a solid platform from which we can proceed to build the deeper and more comprehensive commitment to peace and non-violence." (Pax Christi Bulletin June 1983, emphasis added) And build they did - pressuring the bishops to reevaluate the "strictly conditioned moral acceptance of nuclear deterrence" (para 186 of the pastoral) until Gumbleton could announce in the Dec. 1985 Pax Christi Bulletin that their tactics had succeeded and NCCB had formed a reevaluation committee. He noted, "it has taken us two-and-a-half years to address this question. . . ." In the words of the Catholic columnist, Dick Dowd: "At the November 1985 meeting two years after they enacted the peace pastoral, a new question was raised by Detroit's auxiliary bishop Thomas Gumbleton, one of the pastoral's drafters. Did the U.S. government's defense arsenal still meet the pastoral's standards of morality? It was clear he did not think so. A committee was appointed then, to answer the question he raised." (Times Review 5-28-87) "A SIN SITUATION" With the Ad Hoc reevaluation committee in place. Pax Christi took the next step in its continuing attack on our U.S. nuclear deterrence policy. Where previously it had concentrated on deterrence as "immoral", "morally untenable" the new approach addressed it as a "horrendous evil," "a sin situation." Bishop Gumbleton speaking in Orange County, CA., said "this strategy of deterrence involves us in horrendous evil. A kind of situation of sin that exceeds everything that any nation or people has ever done." (The Wanderer 2-26-87) He repeated this in an address given at Seton Hall University, 4-6-87 and published in part in the June-July issue of the pacifist tabloid, The Catholic Worker. A situation of deterrence, he said, "is a very sinful kind of situation. For we are caught in horrendous evil." Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen, Seattle, WA., who delivered the key note address at the 1987 Pax Christi National Assembly echoed the same words: "... deterrence is not extrinsic to the evil of nuclear war. From that moral perspective, deterrence finds itself at the center of the evil. In other words, our intention or willingness to do the sin could become the sin." (Pax Christi Bulletin Fall 1987) In February 1988 Pax Christi issued its "third official assessment statement on the morality of deterrence." Titled, "Deterrence: A Sin Situation" it asked the question: "Would it not be better to say that deterrence, rather than being morally acceptable under certain conditions, is, in fact, a sin situation which requires wise and deliberate transformation." This assessment also called for a "clear condemnation" of "Star Wars", a description much preferred to "Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)" which in their opinion conceals "the reality" that SDI "combined with offensive weapons ...achieves first strike capability." Prior to the bishops meeting at Collegeville, MN June 24-27, 1988, Pax Christi sent its assessment statement to "the press, our 92 bishop members, 340 corporate sponsors (identified at end of this report) and all leaders of local chapters." As part of this campaign, Pax Christi distributed over 30,000 post cards which were to be mailed to bishops on the deterrence issue." At the Collegeville meeting, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin as chairman of the ad hoc committee reported "on how the 'conditions' laid down in their 1983 letter 'were being observed in the nuclear arms competition'." (The Wanderer 7-7-88) There was, however, opposition to the section on SDI which concluded it was "morally deficient." Michael Schwartz reporting in the September 1988 issue of Crisis Magazine commented "it is hard to find a theological reason to object to SDI; but because of the intense partisanship of the bloc of 'peace' bishops the committee had to find some excuse to oppose it." Bishop Stanislaus Brzana of Ogdensburg questioned the term "morally deficient." "'Are you trying to say it is a sin?' he asked. Uncomfortable with such a harsh term as 'sin' Cardinal Bernardin hesitated for several minutes, finally allowing that SDI is 'morally deficient' but not a 'sin'." (Crisis Magazine as above) Bishop Norman E. McFarland, Diocese of Orange, CA also questioned the term. "Did it mean that SDI is 'immoral'? 'objectively evil'? The report should clearly say what it means, the Bishop added." (The Wanderer as above) However, it was Archbishop Joseph T. Ryan, Archdiocese for Military Services who squarely addresses the issues involved. He declared the section on SDI was "seriously flawed": "It rests," he said, "upon factual data that is highly controverted, supported by an obviously politicized scientific report, and blatantly designed to undermine the declared intention of the government to move beyond the philosophy of MAD. While I recognize our right and obligation to criticize governmental policies, it seems that this section reveals a fundamental distrust and bias against governmental agencies that is not worthy of this body. It runs the risk of repeating our previous experience by failing to recognize the harsh realities of international politics. "None of the arguments presented in the report against SDI outweigh the obvious argument favoring it, namely, the vehement and implacable opposition to it by the Soviets. The obvious question seems to be, if SDI is so unworkable and impractical, why are the Soviets so anxious to derail it? On that basis I recommend that the whole section on SDI be reworked and shortened." (The Wanderer as above) In the end a substantive change was made. As a result of a compromise worked out between Cardinals Bernardin and O'Connor "the words 'morally deficient' were removed and replaced with 'it is our prudential judgment that proposals to press deployment of SDI do not measure up to the moral criteria outlined in this report.'" (The Wanderer as above) A LACK OF CONSENSUS Thus an important distinction was made inasmuch as prudential judgments do not necessarily express universal Church teaching. A recent book states this very well: "The U.S. bishops themselves make this clear in this pastoral letter (Challenge of Peace . . .): "At times we reassert universally binding moral principles (e.g., non-combatant immunity and proportionality). . . .Again at other times we apply moral principles to specific cases. When making applications of these principles we realize - and we wish readers to recognize - that prudential judgments are involved based on specific circumstances which can change or which can be interpreted differently by people of good will." (para. 9-10) "Catholics are not confined to consideration of their own bishops' statements on the issues. The perspectives of other national bishops' conferences are relevant, too. The formation of conscience on matters of prudential judgment takes place in communication and confrontation with the moral judgments of other church communities. To make a reasoned judgment it is necessary to be as widely informed as possible." The author continues quoting The Wanderer: "As Archbishop Philip Hannan (New Orleans) has noted: 'The bishops of West Germany have issued a pastoral letter upholding more strongly than (the U.S.A. letter the right of deterrence by nuclear weapons and a vigorous condemnation of the Communist policy of aggression. The Cardinal of Paris has expressed his judgment on deterrence and nuclear weapons that differs from that of the U.S. bishops. Obviously there is no consensus . . . among hierarchies of other countries about the content of the pastoral letter'." (The Wanderer 5-26-83 quoted in Betraying the Bishops, How the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace is Being Taught by Matthew F. Murphy, Foreword by John Cardinal O'Connor. University Press of America 1987, pp. 13-14) As for Pax Christi, its 1987-88 Annual Report commented: "We are disappointed that the bishops' report failed to offer a way out of the moral wilderness of nuclear deterrence, and we regret that they did not call nuclear deterrence by its true name - a sin situation, an evil from which we must extricate ourselves. We are committed to initiating dialogue among ourselves, our bishops and our fellow Catholics in order to build a consensus on the immorality of nuclear deterrence." A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT In August 1986, the permanent observer of The Holy See to the United Nations, Archbishop Giovanni Cheli, gave an interview published in the newspaper. La Stampa of Turin, Italy on the crises facing that international body. Among the questions asked of this Papal Ambassador who had served at the UN for thirteen years was one about atomic energy. In answer to the question: Following the facts of Chernobyl has it become a reality to the UN to attack the problem of the peaceful use of the atom or not?, the Archbishop replied: "I would say that the catastrophe has not added anything to what is already known about the dangers. And the benefits of atomic energy, I think that all are convinced that a nuclear conflict cannot be won by anyone. The nuclear deterrence exercised until now by the two major atomic arsenals has served, for better or worse, to avoid a third world war. "This is an affirmation which might not be pleasing but it's absolutely realistic. Probably if the world had been armed only with conventional armaments the strongest power would have taken the initiative already." AN AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT In June 1982 on the occasion of the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, a message of Pope John Paul II delivered by Secretary of State Cardinal Agostino Caseroli contained the following authoritative pronouncement: "In current conditions 'deterrence' based on balance, certainly not an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion." (para 8) In this same message in para 5 the Holy Father spoke of the constant teaching of the Church regarding the arms race and disarmament: "The teaching of the Catholic Church in this area has been clear and consistent. It has deplored the arms race, called none-the-less for mutual progressive and verifiable reduction of armaments as well as greater safeguards against misuse of these weapons. It has done so while urging that the independence, freedom and legitimate security of each and every nation by respected. " And just recently, September 4, 1988 the Holy Father in an address to the Military Officers' Training School, Turin, Italy "re-echo(ed) the evangelical invitation of peace." "However," he warned, "there is no guarantee of peace without truth, without liberty, without justice, without solidarity." (L'Osservatore Romano, Oct. 10, 1988) The reasonableness in these statements, based on truth, freedom, justice and security stands in marked contrast to Pax Christi's working agenda outlined at the 1976 "Call To Action" Conference (see above), as well as its current position on deterrence as a "sin situation." Yet Pax Christi does not intend to accept the Holy Father's authoritative pronouncement, rather it has launched a new project - "a post card campaign directed to Pope John Paul II urging him to take a stronger stand against nuclear deterrence." (Annual Report as above) COMPANIONS IN THE PEACE NETWORK Notwithstanding the publicity buildup for a "giant peace rally" sponsored by a radical left coalition, including Pax Christi, to take place during the UN's Third Special Session on Disarmament in New York, June 1988, it was not a media event. Coverage was meager. The point of interest for this documentation is not the interfaith religious service held at the avant-garde Riverside Church or the three hour march for disarmament that culminated in the rally in Central Park with Bishop Gumbleton one of the speakers. All this Pax Christi duly reported. Rather, the principal point of interest is the published list of activist groups that co-sponsored the SSD III National Coalition. A list Pax Christi did not include in its pre-rally promotional mailings. Of equal importance, this list brings to light the rapport pacifist groups like Pax Christi, have with socialist/communist parties and peace fronts like the U.S. Peace Council. The list as well as notice of the Pax Christi Liturgy for Peace printed on a flyer publicizing the rally is included in this documentation. The agenda for this National Coalition of "disarmament, anti-intervention and justice movements" included "complete nuclear disarmament, an end to military intervention and U.S. involvement in Central America, Southern Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region and a new set of priorities which place economic development and human needs over military spending." This is part and parcel of what Suzanne Garment in the Wall Street Journal has called the American Left's "new cottage industry" which uses the language of human rights and social justice to delegitimize" U.S. foreign policy initiatives. Some of the groups in this listing require special mention because of what they represent or their involvement with other Catholic organizations. As an example of the first category: the Catholic Diocese of Detroit - Bishop Gumbleton; Pax Christi; Leadership Conference of Women Religious are found endorsing the same objectives as the Communist Party, USA; Democratic Socialists of America; Socialist Workers Party; U.S. Peace Council. The U.S. Peace Council is the American arm of the Soviet-controlled World Peace Council. It also was listed as an "Anniversary Associate" in the 1984 history of the "New York Intercommunity Center for Justice and Peace." This is documented in the Forum newsletter "Religious Communities, Networking for Radical Social Change" August 1988 issue. This August issue also contains documentation on the following radical left groups involved not only with the "Intercommunity Center for Justice and Pace" but listed among the endorsers of the SSD III National Coalition: Fellowship of Reconciliation; Interfaith Comm. on Corporate Responsibility; Mobilization for Survival; Pledge of Resistance; Religious Task Force; Riverside Church Disarmament Program; SANE/FREEZE; War Resisters League. The Quixote Center listed as a Coalition endorser is another radical Catholic group working closely with Bishop Gumbleton in pro-Sandinista activities. Most of these activist groups have listings periodically on a "Network" feature page in the quarterly Pax Christi Bulletins. This page provides news about activities and events within the "peace" apparatus. Another group familiar to Pax Christi and the Intercommunity Center that does not appear among the SSD III National Coalition endorsers is American Friends Service Committee. A recently published book documents how four major pacifist organizations arrived at an accommodation with revolutionary projects of the left. Of the four, Pax Christi and certain Catholic Religious communities have cooperated with three - American Friends Service Committee, Fellowship of Reconciliation, War Resisters League. This book, "Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism" documents the influence the Soviet Peace Movement has had on these pacifist organizations. According to the highly regarded researcher, author and critic, Rael Jean Isaac, the author, Guenter Lewy shows how these pacifist organizations "work cozily with Communist fronts and form part and parcel of the various radial 'peace and justice' coalitions that advocate disarmament at home and the triumph of Third World Marxist-Leninist insurgencies abroad." (Published by William Eerdmans Publishing, Ann Arbor, MI., 1988) This evaluation should be viewed obectively and should not be underestimated. Apropos of these considerations: The Fall 1987 Pax Christi Bulletin contained a passing comment on our "Spider's Web" documentation. "The far right sees us as a 'spider's web' - a radical pacifist conspiracy in the church. ..." Frankly the word "conspiracy" is not of our choosing - radical, pacifist, yes: but conspiracy? More to the point, in our judgment. Pax Christi is being used. PAX CHRISTI EMBRACES Pax Christi has been inching toward the "women's movement" for several years. At its 1986 National Assembly a workshop on "Jesus, Women, and the Gospel of Non-Violent Love" included "a special focus on the feminine qualities of Jesus" from the viewpoint of a 14th century mystic Julian of Norwich. The Eucharist Liturgy on that occasion (which featured liturgical dancers) declared in a long litany of affirmation as part of the Act of Faith: "Because of our belief in the Church as community, we affirm the dignity and giftedness of women. We commit ourselves to a prayer whose language includes women and men equally." The "Network" page in the Fall 1987 Bulletin printed an announcement of a Time Consultants Conference on "Women in the Church: Developing the Structures for Equality" to be held in Washington D.C. in November. Another announcement was for the Women-Church Convergence Conference. That conference theme was " Women-Church: Claiming Our Power" to be held in Cincinnati, OH, in October. Mary Luke Tobin, SL one of the featured speakers at the October Conference had "led a seminar on linking the women's movement and peace movement" at the Pax Christi National Assembly of that year. National Coordinator Mary Lou Kownacki, OSB mentioned in her column in this 1987 issue of the Bulletin (where her comments about "spider's web" appeared) that "Mary Luke" was "one of the few 'women observers' at Vatican Council II . . . she has held every position available to women in the church." Then Kownacki, reaching her punch line wrote, "That's a limited number of course. If the Catholic church were a just church, Mary Luke would be a cardinal....at least." For more on Tobin's qualifications and associations, particularly with Fellowship of Reconciliation see Forum newsletter on "Religious Communities - Networking for Radical Social Change." The Winter 1987 issue of Pax Christi Bulletin reported on the success of the Women-Church Convergence Conference. It disclosed that it "grew out of the Women Ordination Conference" and "works for the recognition, empowerment and development of women as church." While Pax Christi is not a sponsor, staff members did attend the conference. With exceedingly swift action, the Pax Christi USA National Council in December 1987 approved a policy "On The Use of Inclusive Language." This was published in the Spring 1988 Bulletin. It reads in part:
Pax Christi has now joined forces with Priests for Equality, Quixote Center and all the other groups within the Church working to create the appearance of a groundswell for inclusive language. Momentum for this comes from the avant-garde Modernists among the priests, religious and bishops, not from the average lay Catholic. RELIGIOUS DISOBEDIENCE The Summer 1988 Bulletin featured a center-spread report replete with pictures of Pax Christi participants in the New York Peace March (see above) and the evening liturgy celebrated by Bishop Gumbleton at St. Paul the Apostle Church. Their festive banners prompted spontaneous applause during the opening procession and two professional dancers performed during the reading of the Gospel on the sowing of the mustard seeds. "Reflections" that followed the readings were given by Mary Lou Kownacki, OSB. Pax Christi thought sufficiently well of her homily to include "an edited version" in the Fall 1987-88 Annual Report. Using the word "reflections" in that report does not conceal the fact that what was done and the bishop allowed was in direct violation of Canon Law 767.1 On Preaching the Word of God, which reads: "The most important form of preaching is the homily, which is part of the liturgy, and is reserved to a priest or deacon. .. . "' CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE The Pax Christi Annual Report also gave prominent mention to Pax Christi's recent policy statement on "inclusive language at all occasions of national gatherings including the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy. .. ." This was followed by an endorsement of nonviolent civil disobedience as a national policy: In order to promote primacy of conscience, Pax Christi USA made two forceful policy statements. Pax Christi USA has endorsed nonviolent civil disobedience as a legitimate expression of Christian conscience. We also give our support to Pax Christi employees who practice war tax resistance by refusing to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service in collecting any taxes owed." VIOLENCE TO MARY, VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD In a recent publication the importance of using inclusive language was stressed. To do otherwise is a form of violence. This linkage found in its publication "Way of Peace, A Guide to Nonviolence" reads: "Respect for others' dignity also means using inclusive language - addressing both men and women, all of humankind - in casual conversation, at worship services, in public forums. Ignoring one half of the human race by refusing to "call women by name' is violence." Using this concern as a guideline how does one equate the violence Pax Christi inflicts on the Mother of God when in its "contemporary" Litany of Mary of Nazareth she is invoked, not as Mary, Virgin Mother of God, but as "unwed mother" - pray for us? This is inexcusable especially in consideration of the plague of teenage pregnancies eroding the moral fiber of our country. And yet, Pax Christi membership numbers over 8,500: bishop membership stands at 92 and a total of 322 Religious communities are listed in the Annual Report as "Corporal Sponsors" contributing over $45,000 for the 1987-88 fiscal year. IN CONCLUSION Pax Christi has become a powerful arm of the radical left exerting a strong influence on the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and Religious communities that extends through diocesan justice and peace offices to the parish level. SSD III NATIONAL COALITION African Peoples Christian Organization |