A key issue in modern international affairs is the policy of possessing nuclear weapons in order allegedly to prevent war. Christian conscience cannot evade the dilemma that this policy poses. It is easy to try to pull the sting from it by playing a game with words and theories.

A recent instance of a common way of pulling the sting is Bernard Brodie's “Morals and Strategy” (worldview, September 1964).

Both Catholics and non-Catholics attempt to enlist the Pope as a partisan of one or another political cause: disarmament, socialization, civil rights, aid for underdeveloped nations, the condemnation of a Hitler. The relationship between morality and politics, however, is ambiguous. Good men may well disagree about which long-range or short-range political programs are best calculated to serve man's moral interests. What, then, is the present position of the Catholic—liberal or conservative—when the Pope makes a moral-political statement about the issues of our time?

In its general lines, the traditional answer to this question is simple enough. There are three elements to distinguish: (1) moral principles; (2) political programs; (3) concrete decisions. The Pope's moral competence extends most clearly to declarations about principles. In proportion as judgments about historical facts, present trends, and the yet uncertain future are involved in political programs, the Pope's competence becomes increasingly ambiguous; his is increasingly but one of many prophetic voices “crying in the wilderness.”