Nuclear Weapons and Christian Conscience, ed. Walter Stein

[p027] Nuclear Weapons and Christian Con- science. By Ed. Walter Stein, Foreword by Archbishop Roberts. Merlin Press, 12s. 6d. That this book is tremendously progressive by the standards of the Roman Catholic Church does nothing to prevent it being reactionary by any other standards. The very dis- cerning reader will be able to extract from the morass of metaphysico- theological reasonings the fact that the writers are arguing the case for unilateral nuclear disarmament. In the words of the editor, ‘There is now no moral alternative to an un- conditional renunciation of “the deterrent”.’ It has to be admitted that, as metaphysico - theological reasoning, some of that contained in this book is of the highest order. This is especially true of those sections con- tributed by the two most skilful and devious members of British academic philosophy, G. E. M. Anscombe and Peter Geach, both of whom- are Catholics. However admirable as pieces. of scholasticism, these reason- ings are no substitute for the political analysis that must precede tactics against the H-bomb, and war in general. Such a political analysis is, of course, completely alien to Catholicism, and would lead to some rather painful conclusions about the - role of the Church. Miss Anscombe’s section is the nearest the book - gets to political theory, and she doesn’t seem to be acquainted with any of the develop- since Hobbes. It is her view that ‘to think that society’s coercive authority is evil is akin to thinking the flesh evil and family life evil. These things delong to the present constitution of mankind’, and that ‘the world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws, -and ... the exercise of coercive power is essential to these institutions as they are now’. But we.search in vain for any attempt to understand the origins and functions of institutions which defend their existence by coercion. It is a platitude to say that institutions defend their own existence: the im- portant question is—in the interests of which class do particular institu- tions function? Anyone less concerned with what Marx has called (in another context)

[p028] 106 ‘metaphysical subtleties and theolo- gical niceties’ would have preferred some explanation of the campaign of Catholic Action against Frank Cousins, the attempt by Catholic Action to take control of the ETU and the activities of Catholic Action in the AEU and its support for the H-bomb policy of Gaitskell and _ Brown. Workers have more to learn from Catholic Action bomb-lovers in the TU movement than a thousand abstractions. Cw. Mr. K ‘The Life