| |
October 11, 2002
The Focus of the Workshop
I. Religion and Foreign Policy
II. Discussion: Evaluating the Role of Individuals and
the Catholic Church in American Foreign Policy
III. Discussion: The Church's Foreign Policy
Teachings
Suggested Reading
Workshop Participants
As political scientist Mark Armstrong writes:
Religious institutions play only a modest, indirect role in the development
and implementation of foreign policy. But as moral teachers and the bearers of
ethical traditions, religious communities can help to structure debate and
illuminate relevant moral norms. They can help to develop and sustain political
morality by promoting moral reasoning and by exemplifying values and behaviors
that are conducive to human dignity.1
In the United States, churches, synagogues, and other religious organizations
have long played their part in cultivating civil society. But while many are
aware of the role of religion in shaping domestic politics, the role of religion
in U.S. foreign policy is less well understood. Interestingly, the Carnegie
Council on Ethics and International Affairs was one of the few institutions to
provide a public space for the exploration of religious values in U.S. foreign
policy, principally through its monthly magazine, Worldview.
The Council's March 2002 workshop focused on the role of Catholicism in U.S.
foreign policy. By examining how the American Catholic church has evolved in the
United States and what its influence has been on American foreign policy, the
participants tried to throw light on the more general problem of whether and how
moral norms play a role in international affairs. Conference participants were
asked to explore the following questions:
- What role do religion and religious values play in foreign policy?
- How do religious institutions with an established moral tradition, such as
the Catholic Church, affect foreign policy making in the United States? Does the
impact occur as a result of individual efforts - for instance, when church
leaders advise government officials - or is it more indirect, such as what
happens when Catholics bring their moral ideals to bear on policy via the
democratic process?
- What specific teachings and/or moral lessons does the Catholic Church offer
on pressing global issues such as the use of military force, global economic
justice, and human rights?
Understanding the role that religion plays in foreign policy is different
from understanding the role of moral principles in foreign policy. Religions
provide more than moral norms for behavior. They add their own particular
understandings of the human person. They have their own definitions of the
relationship of the person to the political community. And there may be an
eschatological dimension to their sense of the purpose of human life. In
addition, religions are likely to rely on a set of sacred texts and a community
of believers, as well as on a diversity of ways of interpreting the sacred
texts. Given these characteristics, religions can have diverse relationships to
the political community, either supporting national and state policies, or
playing a more prophetic and critical role.
While the United States has made the separation of religion and public policy
a foundation of its political system, the characteristic religiosity of American
citizens suggests that religious beliefs influence much of the political
discourse in the United States.2
Catholic influence on American foreign policy has come, as one would expect,
through two different channels: individuals and institutions. Catholic
individuals whose religion has shaped their views of politics and society have
served as foreign policy advisors, decision makers, and commentators. In
addition, Catholic institutions have sometimes had a long-term effect on the
broader culture. At a critical moment in the 1980s, for instance, the Catholic
bishops' letter on nuclear weapons helped shape the American public debate on
issues of war and peace. The bishops' statement articulated a sophisticated
moral position on a highly controversial topic. Has the Catholic Church been
able to make similarly clear positions on other issues of importance to U.S.
foreign policy?
The Catholic intellectual tradition is rich in reflection on political
issues. Drawing on resources as diverse as the Bible, Saint Augustine, medieval
scholasticism, Renaissance philosophy, neo-Thomism, and liberation theology,
this tradition offers an intellectual framework for evaluating foreign policy
that links individual believers with the larger political community,
particularly on matters of human rights, poverty, and war.
With Vatican II, a council of the entire Catholic Church convened by Pope
John XXIII, the Church began to shift its aims from defending Catholic
institutions to supporting the humanity of all peoples. The Council's
declaration on religious freedom, "Dignitatis Humanae," profoundly altered the
Catholic Church's relations with other religions as well as its approach to the
defense of religious liberty. As theologian George Weigel has argued, this
statement initiated a revolution in attitudes toward human rights in the
Catholic Church, which came to fruition in John Paul II's effort, starting with
his 1979 speech in Warsaw, to overthrow communism in Eastern Europe.3
In Latin America, Vatican II spurred various episcopal conferences to launch
defenses of human rights in a region known for its religious conservativism.
Beginning with the 1968 Conference of Latin American Bishops in Medellin,
Columbia, high-level church officials began to support activists seeking to
defend the rights of minorities and the rural poor in Latin America, adopting a
"preferential option for the poor." Although the current pope has strongly
criticized so-called liberation theology for supporting violent revolution and
Marxist class struggle, the movement remains vital, and there is widespread
consensus that the movement played a key role in promoting the ongoing shift in
Latin America from authoritarian rule to democracy.4
On May 15, 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" [On the
Condition of Labor].5 Written in
response to the rise of socialism in Europe as a result of the unfair labor
conditions of the Industrial Revolution, this encyclical is widely regarded as
the most important statement of Catholic thinking on economic issues. Leo XIII
drew upon scholastic philosophy, Biblical teaching, and an appreciation for the
conditions of an industrial economy to argue that laborers deserved rights but
that this did not entail the need to abolish private property.
On May 1, 1991, Pope John Paul II issued "Centesimus Annus" [The Hundredth
Year], an encyclical in commemoration of "Rerum Novarum." Noting the importance
of his predecessor's document, John Paul II stressed its continuing relevance,
claiming that the same principles applied to the collapse of socialism in
Europe. This had created both new opportunities for economic development and, at
the same time, an ideological vacuum for Europeans and others. The pope's
letter, therefore, not only reiterated Leo's encyclical but also reminded the
international community that Catholic social teachings support a just
distribution of wealth. The letter generated debate between those who saw it as
vindicating capitalism and those who saw it as supporting a redistribution of
wealth.
Catholic social thought extends beyond these two papal encyclicals, although
these two capture much of it. American bishops have also spoken out on economic
issues, the most important occasion being in 1986, when they issued a pastoral
entitled "Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching
and the U.S. Economy."6 This
represented the bishops' attempt to address American economic policy in the same
way they addressed nuclear weapons in 1983. Likewise the result of extensive
consultations with scholars and policy makers, the pastoral letter referred to
the moral issues raised by President Reagan's economic policies and specifically
his administration's decision to revise the U.S. tax code to support economic
growth via business advancement, at times to the detriment of social safety
nets.
More recently, U.S. bishops have publicly expressed concern on global
economic issues. In 1999, they issued a statement on debt forgiveness, "A
Jubilee Call for Debt Forgiveness." Building on the biblical notion of a jubilee
year in which all debts were forgiven, the bishops moved the debt forgiveness
debate away from the ideal of justice and onto the ideal of charity - a move
that raises important questions about how we evaluate social and political
institutions.
Many see the just war tradition as an important Catholic contribution to
understanding the use of military force.7 Its core principles revolve around the right to wage war, jus
ad bellum, and the right to take certain types of actions within a war,
jus in bello. Both aspects of just war theory spell out conditions that
need to be present for war to have a moral basis, many of which have been
incorporated into international legal statutes. Just war principles are not,
however, the same as international law. Situations can occur where the use of
force may be considered morally justifiable even if that use is illegal
according to international treaty law. An example of this dilemma was the
intervention in Kosovo. Though undertaken without the sanction of the UN
Security Council, many deemed it morally justified.
The phrase "just war" has become part of the lexicon of American foreign and
defense policy over the last twelve years, starting with the decision to use
force in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. U.S. policy makers stressed
that the use of force in removing Iraq from Kuwait fulfilled the criteria of
jus ad bellum: the right authority sanctioned it (the UN Security
Council); it was undertaken for a just cause (to reverse an illegal
intervention); it was undertaken with a right intention (not for personal or
solely national interests); it was a proportional response; it was the last
resort, after diplomatic negotiation; and it involved a reasonable hope of
success. While U.S. adherence to these criteria is open to debate, it does
appear that the first Bush administration acted consciously to respect just war
principles. Since the Gulf War, the United States has invoked just war
principles in other uses of force, most recently in Afghanistan.
Participants at the workshop were asked to identify decisions, trends, and
outcomes resulting from the involvement of Catholic individuals in the foreign
policy process. They then considered the role of the American Catholic church
itself in the nation's political system, especially as it relates to foreign
policy.
Participants agreed that Catholics played a minimal role in U.S. government
prior to the twentieth century. They took participant Wilson Miscamble's point
that even into the early 20th century, Catholic involvement in foreign policy
was "episodic and, in fact, largely limited to attempting to protect the
interests of the institutional church in other lands."8 During the early decades of the Cold War, however,
Catholic involvement in U.S. foreign policy became much more noticeable, even
though Catholics were not well represented in foreign policy circles. Many
prominent Catholic individuals strongly supported anti-communist policies in
both foreign and domestic arenas. For example, Francis Cardinal Spellman,
archbishop of New York in the early Cold War period, was a confirmed supporter
of U.S. policies in Vietnam; he also served as the chaplain of the U.S. military
during the Vietnam War.
But if Catholics became more prominent in foreign policy circles during the
last four decades of the twentieth century, participants said it would be
difficult to identify a specifically "Catholic" component to their thinking.
Many Catholic policy makers essentially privatized their religious commitment
and it was not evident in their public involvement. Still, as Miscamble noted in
his presentation, the 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of Catholic decision
makers who had clearly been influenced by their religious beliefs. The members
of this group tended to move along two intellectual tracks: hard-line
anti-communism and human rights advocacy. Some sought to combine the two
approaches, such as President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbignew
Brzezinski, who supported Carter's human rights policies but also acted as a
strong voice of anti-communism in the Carter cabinet. Brzezinski, a Polish
Catholic, played a key role in supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland
through his friendship with Pope John Paul II and other Polish contacts.9 Others - such as Reagan administration
official Alexander Haig and CIA Director William Casey - focused on implementing
a tough anti-communist stance. This put Haig and Casey at odds with the public
advocacy of U.S. Catholic bishops on matters of arms control and U.S. policy in
Central America.
Margaret Steinfels, editor of the Catholic magazine Commonweal,
responded to Miscamble by highlighting the importance of two other sets of
individuals on the foreign policy process: Catholic military personnel and
journalists. Military officers have been an important part of the foreign policy
making process, and as Steinfels reminded the workshop, this particular group
has increasingly stressed the importance of just war theory. She also pointed
out how the media shapes debates about foreign policy, suggesting the need for
further study of the influence exerted by the explicitly Catholic media and
Catholic journalists.
Maryann Cusimano Love, a professor of international relations at Catholic
University and a member of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB)
International Policy Committee, noted that globalization increased opportunities
for Catholic individuals to affect world politics. The attacks of September 11
demonstrated the extent to which global technology has empowered individuals to
affect foreign affairs. Yet individuals can also be empowered in a positive way
by global networks, she said. They can work with citizens abroad to bring
pressure to bear upon corporations and interstate organizations as well as
national governments.
Catholic individuals benefit from having a coherent and well-developed
intellectual and ethical tradition, along with an extensive (education, health
care, parish, and NGO) network. They are therefore well placed to respond to the
challenges of globalization and to bridge global institutional gaps between what
governments should do and what they are able to do. Love maintained that NGOs
seek to recruit individuals with a commitment to justice and peace at the global
level, a commitment often found in those with a Catholic education and
upbringing.10
Love cited the evidence of individual Catholics serving as leaders of NGOs or
as policy entrepreneurs who have successfully challenged U.S., IMF, and World
Bank policies toward debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries (policies
referred to as "dead on arrival" by the U.S. Treasury Secretary only three years
ago). Likewise, Catholic individuals have pressured the U.S. government, the
WTO, and the American pharmaceutical industry to change their policies regarding
access to essential medicines, especially for HIV/AIDs, within developing
countries.
Catholicism, with its hierarchical structure, provides an easily identifiable
institution that can hold its own in the American political context. That said,
the overlapping hierarchies of the Vatican in Rome, the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and the individual dioceses throughout the country
make that institutional context more complicated than it might first appear.
Moreover, each of the various Catholic orders who speak on global public policy
has a distinct voice.
Fr. Drew Christiansen, who served as the USCCB's counselor on international
affairs and has long been involved in public policy advocacy for the Catholic
Church, discussed the potential of the Church to serve as an institutional
foreign policy player. Christiansen emphasized that although the USCCB has a
large and knowledgeable staff, the bishops collectively decide on which
international affairs topics to address. He noted that the conference issues
public statements and lobbies Congress on certain issues. As an example of the
latter, the USCCB played a major role in the passage of the U.S. Senate's
international debt relief bill.
In response, Bruce Russett, a professor in the political science department
at Yale University and a participant in the drafting of the Bishop's 1983
pastoral on nuclear weapons, pointed out that Catholic bishops have failed to
live up to their potential since then.11 In 1983 they were able to speak with one voice, serving as a
magister, or teaching body, helping to form the conscience of the
faithful and the larger community. The fact that the Bishops have not written
such an influential letter since then indicates a change in the role of the
conference, Russett argued. This is in large part due to an institutional shift
in the American and global church hierarchy, which undermines the Church's
ability to comment publicly on issues of international affairs. Jo Renee
Formicola of Seton Hall University agreed, adding that as the process of letter
writing has become more widespread, it has lost some of its force.
Russett went on to point out that the Bishops' letter in response to the
attacks of September 11 was not written "by" the conference but "on behalf of"
the conference. This semantic change reveals either a lack of consensus among
the bishops or else their reluctance to go on record about a difficult and
controversial subject. The irony is that the U.S. military response appears to
coincide well with the principles of the "just war" tradition that the bishops
had drawn upon in 1983.
Russett also highlighted the process by which the 1983 letter was drafted and
promulgated. At their 1980 meeting, Auxiliary Bishop P. Francis Murphy of
Baltimore requested that the conference address the issue of nuclear war. In
response, the conference created an ad hoc committee headed by Archbishop Joseph
Bernardin of Chicago. The committee then drafted a letter that was then subject
to a long process of revision and discussion among experts in moral theology,
international affairs, and public policy, including European bishops, Vatican
officials, and representatives of other religious groups. The resulting letter
(which took four drafts) was written in such a way that it could appeal to a
broad audience. As noted in William Au's account of the bishops' deliberations:
The document must speak to both the faithful and the civil community, and see
both to form the conscience of the believer and to contribute to the wider
public policy debate. The bishops would therefore have to employ distinct but
complementary styles of address which combine both prophetic and philosophical
modes of discourse.12
The letter clearly had an impact on public discourse, with critics from both
sides of the political spectrum joining the debate. Because it sought to find a
space between a pacifist and just war position - both of which have long
pedigrees in the Catholic Church's teachings on war and peace - the letter
generated controversy and discussion both within and outside the Church. It
remains one of the most influential public statements by the American Catholic
Church on U.S. foreign policy, concurred workshop participants.
Participants said that three areas in particular have been the subject of
modern Church teachings on important themes in U.S. foreign affairs: human
rights, economic justice, and the use of military force.
The Christian tradition is founded on the dignity of the individual person.
But the idea of human rights was regarded with deep suspicion by the nineteenth
century papacy. Vatican II marked a profound change in the Catholic Church in
favor of human rights. But has the Church's support for human rights had an
influence on U.S. foreign policy? Gerald Powers, who directs the Office of
International Justice and Peace at the USCCB, suggested that the challenge has
been for the Church to translate its cosmopolitan approach into policy
suggestions for those concerned with the interests of particular nations. As a
result, the Church has limited its focus to just a few human rights concerns. In
the early 1990s, for example, the Church actively campaigned for the United
States to become involved in preventing conflict through humanitarian
intervention.
Powers further noted that the Church also faces the difficult challenge of
not having a strong presence in many of the regions of the world where human
rights violations are currently taking place. The lack of local Catholic
communities makes the work of American Catholic bishops more difficult, as they
do not have information about, let alone access to, those suffering human rights
violations. This puts them at a disadvantage in terms of advising the U.S.
government on policies to undertake. The problem has been compounded since the
attacks of September 11, after which the U.S. government became focused on
countries with predominately Muslim populations.
Clearly, current Catholic thinking supports human rights. But how the Church
can translate that thinking into advocacy remains unclear. Especially now, as
the U.S. government orients its policies toward combating terrorism, concern for
human rights may lose its priority on the foreign policy agenda. If the Church
cannot provide information and analysis to policy makers because of its lack of
access to communities struggling to protect their human rights, the Catholic
human rights revolution that helped shift Latin American polities to democracy
and topple East European communism will decline in influence in the coming
years, participants said.
Charles Wilbur, who teaches economics at the University Notre Dame, pointed
out that many in the United States continue to see issues of global economics in
terms of charity rather than justice. This subtle distinction allows a form of
moral evaluation that is less demanding of the developed world. If they are
called on to forgive out of a spirit of charity rather than justice, individuals
will not feel obligated to change their behaviors or pressure their government
to restructure international institutions, Wilbur said. For instance, the
bishops' call to debt forgiveness may have led some Catholics to believe that
they are not obligated to advocate broad social and economic change.
Wilbur observed that policy makers in Washington are today less willing to
listen to the bishops on matters of economic justice than they were in the past.
As a result, he, along with other workshop participants, suggested that American
bishops seek to reach the "pew" rather than the policy maker. Reflecting this,
the USCCB is now providing resources to parishes suggesting measures that can be
taken, both at an individual and a community level, to sustain the global
environment.
Catholic bishops, however, have long been engaged in direct action to relieve
poverty around the world. Fr. William Headly, who is responsible for policy and
strategic issues at Catholic Relief Services (CRS), explained that CRS was
created in 1943 in response to the devastation caused by World War II. It today
provides aid to impoverished communities in the Middle East, Latin America,
Asia, and Eastern Europe, and frequently lobbies the U.S. government on issues
related to global economics. For instance, the coordinator for CRS in Sudan
recently testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the
difficulties of providing humanitarian aid in that war-torn society.13
Headly went on to argue, however, that simply testifying before Congress and
lobbying the U.S. government is not enough. He called for the CRS and comparable
institutions to encourage Americans to think more about the responsibilities of
the United States in the global economy and argued for more education at all
levels of society to frame global economic issues in terms of justice rather
than charity.
The debate continues to rage over the legitimacy of military force in
response to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Many have judged the American
administration's initial response, its attack on Afghanistan, to fulfill all the
criteria of the just war doctrine. Yet calls to expand the war to places like
Iraq and the Philippines have raised questions about the role of international
norms in the conduct of the war. Moreover, as policy makers adopt the language
of just war, it loses its power as a limit on the use of force while increasing
the danger that key components of the doctrine will be lost as policy makers
seek to justify their actions on moral grounds.
A number of workshop participants openly wondered whether the just war
tradition has lost momentum in its attempt to limit the use of force. George
Lopez, director of policy studies at the Kroc Institute at the University of
Notre Dame, argued that the use of just war theory by U.S. officials has
undermined the presumption against the use of force on which the tradition
rests. Whereas previously the evaluation of the justice of a cause was a matter
of public debate, this is no longer the case. Nowadays, citizens tend to be
asked to approve the use of military force on moral grounds without being given
enough information to make that judgment. The most recent example is the debate
over an attack on Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. The Bush administration
has not produced evidence that the Iraqi government played a role in the
September 11 attacks but rather has asked the American public to trust that such
evidence exists. Citizens are unable to evaluate the moral worth of military
force because in this instance, they have not been given the necessary facts and
information.
Lopez went on to suggest that the terms used to establish jus in bello
such as non-combatant immunity and proportionality have been undermined by new
weapons technology. Precision-guided missiles, for example, have made U.S.
policy makers more willing to use force because they believe that these weapons
will not harm civilians. Thus the concept of non-combatant immunity no longer
appears to limit the use of force in the same way as before.
In an e-mail exchange with Lopez following the conference, Patrick Callahan,
a professor at DePaul University, suggested that Lopez may have understated the
problem:
My reading is that policy makers don't even use JWT [just war tradition] as
systematic checklist. Rather, they seem to address two criteria: just cause and
non-combatant immunity. Just cause, or something that can be called just cause,
. . . creates the presumption for force. If the battle plans do not call for
directly targeting civilians, then resort to war is considered justified. Other
criteria - last resort, competent authority, right intent and proportionality -
generally get little if any consideration.
Other workshop participants pointed out that a tension still exists in
Catholic thought on matters of war and peace. Alongside the just war tradition,
there is a strong pacifist tradition in Catholic thinking, one that rejects the
use of force. As workshop participant Drew Christiansen noted in a recent
article, "The just war tradition is fast becoming a contested field of ideas in
Catholic circles."14 Both pacifists
and just warriors continue to struggle with their respective traditions in an
attempt to evaluate the justness of the current war against terrorism.
1 Mark Amstutz,
"Faith Based NGOs and U.S. Foreign Policy," in The Influence of Faith:
Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy, Eliott Abrams, ed. (Lanham: Rowman
and Littlefield, 2001): 175-176. [Back]
2 On the role of
Christianity in the thinking of Dwight Eisenhower, see Seth Jacobs, "Our System
Demands the Supreme Being: The U.S. Religious Revival and the 'Diem Experiment,
1954-55," Diplomatic History (Fall 2001): 589-624. Jimmy Carter's
religious faith clearly played an important role in his foreign policy
orientation; see his autobiography, Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President
(Toronto and New York, 1982). For an analysis of the role of religion in
statecraft and why scholars have tended to ignore it, see Religion: The
Missing Dimension of Statecraft, Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). [Back]
3 George Weigel,
"Dignitatis Humanae and the Future of the Catholic Human Rights
Revolution," 7 December 1995 speech delivered at the Becket Fun for Religious
Liberty's conference on secularism and religious liberty in Rome, Italy. [Back]
4 See Margaret
Crahan, "Religion and Societal Change: The Struggle for Human Rights in Latin
America," in Religion and Human Rights: Competing Claims? Carrie
Gustafson and Peter Juviler, eds. (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1999): 57-80. [Back]
5 The Vatican's
Web site provides the encyclical in translation: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html;
likewise for the commemorative encyclical issued by John-Paul II 100 years
later: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html [Back]
6 United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on
Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy (Washington: NCCB Publishers,
1986). [Back]
7 Many argue that
the just war tradition is no longer uniquely Catholic in its heritage; Paul
Ramsey,for instance, is a leading Protestant theologian who argues that the just
war tradition "belongs to all Christians." See his bookThe Just War
(Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002). Notably, Michael Walzer, who has written
one of the most important analyses of the just war tradition, does not draw on
Catholic teaching in any significant way; see his Just and Unjust Wars
(New York: Basic Books, 1992). Another important source for this viewpoint is
The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspective, Terry
Nardin, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). [Back]
8 Wilson D.
Miscamble has addressed this topic in the following two articles: "American
Catholics and Foreign Policy: Past Limitations, Present Obligations," in
America magazine (8 December 1979): 370; and "Catholics and American
Foreign Policy from McKinley to McCarthy: A Historiographical Survey," in
Diplomacy History (Summer 1980): 223-240. [Back]
9 Jo Renee
Formicola, Pope John Paul II: Prophetic Politician (Washington:
Georgetown University Press, 2002): 94-95. [Back]
10 See Margaret
Keck and Katherine Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Trans-National Advocacy
Networks in World Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998) for an
analysis of how Catholic NGO networks play a crucial role in world politics. [Back]
11 United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our
Response, and Building Peace: A Pastoral Reflection on the Response to The
Challenge of Peace and A Report on The Challenge of Peace and Policy
Developments, 1983-1988 (Washington DC: NCCB Publishers, 1983 and 1988,
respectively). [Back]
12 William Au,
The Cross, the Flag and the Bomb: American Catholics Debate War and Peace,
1960-1983 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985): 205. See also Jim Castelli, The
Bishops and the Bomb (Garden City: Image, 1983); and Bruce Russett, "Ethical
Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence," in International Security (Spring 1984):
36-54. [Back]
13 See the
statement by Paul Townsend on implementing U.S. Policy in the Sudan at
http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/africa/sudan/senate_testimony_sudan.pdf.
[Back]
14 Drew
Christiansen, "Hawks, Doves, and Pope John Paul II," America, August
12-19, 2002: 9-11. [Back]
Suggested Reading
Religion and International Affairs
- Abrams, Eliot, ed. The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S.
Foreign Policy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
- Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and
Reconciliation. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
- Jack, Homer, ed. Religion and Peace: Papers from the National
Inter-Religious Conference on Peace. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, 1966.
- Johnston, Douglas and Cynthia Sampson, eds. Religion: The Missing
Dimension of Statecraft. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
- Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of
Religious Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
- Mische, Patricia M. and Melissa Merkling, eds. Toward a Global
Civilization? The Contributions of Religions. New York: Peter Lang
Publishers, 2001.
Catholicism and International Affairs
- Au, William A. The Cross, the Flag and the Bomb: American Catholics
Debate War and Peace, 1960-1983. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985.
- Weigel, George. Tranquillitas Ordinis: The Present Failure and Future
Promise of American Catholic Thought on War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987.
Catholic Church Documents on International Affairs
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Building Peace: A Pastoral
Reflection on the Response to The Challenge of Peace and a Report on The
Challenge of Peace and Policy Developments, 1983-1988. Washington: NCCB
Publishers, 1988.
- _____The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response.
Washington: NCCB Publishers, 1983.
Religion and Human Rights
- Witte, Jr., John, and Johan D. van der Vyver, eds. Religious Human Rights
in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 1996.
- _____Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious
Perspectives. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996.
Religion and Global Economics
- Finn, James, ed. Global Economics and Religion. New Brunswick:
Transaction Books, 1983.
- Hicks, Douglas. Inequality and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
- Miller, David and Sohail Hashmi, eds. Boundaries and Justice: Diverse
Ethical Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
- Reed, Charles, ed. Development Matters: Christian Perspectives on
Globalization. London: Church House Publishing, 2001.
Religion and the Use of Military Force
- Johnson, James Turner. Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.
- _____The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Traditions. University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
- Kelsay, John. Islam and War: A Study in Comparative Ethics.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
- Nardin, Terry, ed. Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular
Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
- Ramsey, Paul. The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility.
Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.
- R. Scott Appleby, Director, Joan B. Kroc Institute, Notre Dame
University
- Andrea Bartoli, Director, Center on International Conflict
Resolution, Columbia University
- Jack Becker, Department of English, Fairleigh Dickinson University
- Patrick Callahan, Department of Political Science, DePaul University
- Fr. Drew Christiansen, Woodstock Theological Center
- Margaret E. Crahan, Department of History, Hunter College
- Maryann K. Cusimano, Department of Politics, The Catholic University
of America
- James T. Fisher, Department of History, St. Louis University
- Jo Renee Formicola, Department of Political Science, Seton Hall
University
- Walt Grazer, Policy Advisor, Office of International Justice &
Peace, U.S. Catholic Conference
- Rev. William Headley, Deputy Executive Director, Catholic Relief
Services
- Rabbi Leon Klenicki, former Director of Interfaith Relations,
Anti-Defamation League
- John P. Langan, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin Professor of Catholic
Social Thought, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University
- George A. Lopez, Director of Policy Studies, Joan B. Kroc Institute,
University of Notre Dame
- Luis Lugo, Director, Religion Program, Pew Charitable Trusts
- Rev. Wilson D. Miscamble, Department of History, University of Notre
Dame, and Carnegie Council trustee
- Martin Poblete, Northeast Hispanic Catholic Center, Columbia
University
- Gerard Powers, Director, Office of International Justice and Peace,
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
- Thomas Quigley, Office of Social Development and World Peace, U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops
- Peter Redpath, Department of Philosophy, St. John's University
- Rabbi Arnold E. Resnicoff, National Director of Interreligious
Affairs, The American Jewish Committee, and Carnegie Council trustee
- Bruce M. Russett, Dean Acheson Professor of International Relations,
Department of Political Science, Yale University
- Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, editor, Commonweal Magazine
- Robert White, President, Center for International Policy
- Charles K. Wilber, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, Notre
Dame University
|
|
