-- _ .....,.--._-.. -..

--- ~

.. ..-.-~~--.:-""'=

THE JUST VIAR CONCEPT AND .ANERI CAN CHURCHES

IN THE
ANE1U CAN A.l~TnJAR
MOVEHENT

1965 .. 1971
,

by Bruce Hiller

An essay submitted to the faculty of Millsaps College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 3achelor of Arts with honors in the Department of Political Science.

$("

':,

Hississippi 1974

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION ...............

~..

Page

II. III.

HISTORICAL Sl~Y

OF THE JUST WAR .. Page

THE CHURCHES AND VIETNAl1 A.

B.

The Churches and the Cold War Before 1965 Page

The War years ................................. Page

14

IV.
v.

PHILOSOPHICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS Page

COrrCLUSION .......... '...
Page

41
58

FOOTNOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

The thesis of this paper is that the moral issues surrounding American intervention in Vietnam caused the alienation

the

of a significant from the policies

and influential

segment of American religious

leadership

of the United States government in Indochina.

The religious opposition of the historical concept

to the Vietnam War brought a further development of the jU8t war. This concept began in Christian

thought with St. Augus-

tine, and the tradition was carried on and enriched by St. Thomas Aqu1.naa and obher-e such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. means whereby religious thinkers have attempted This doctrine is a

to subject particular wars

to moral judgment;

in the Vietnam conflict,

the government and policies

of the United States came under heavy moral scrutiny from many of the most important elements of American religion - Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish.

This paper deals with the nature of the religio~

reaction to the Viet-

nam War, and with the question of why the strong religious opposition was manifest in this war and not in others. Much of the clergy in the United

States had participated evident success. social problems, moral necessity televiSion,

actively in the civil rights movement with much of religious involvement in

This had begun a practice

and it had convinced many of the effectiveness of such involvement. Advanced COmmunications,

and even especially

had moved the war from the battlefield the horrors of war on millions sensitive.

to the living room, and especially the

had impressed most morally evolution

of Americans,

The Vietnam period was an important time of moral.

for America and American religion.

HISTORICAL

SUMMARY OF THE JUST WAR DOOTRINE

The doctrine

of the just war became an important

one for American

re-

ligion in the Vietnam period, and this paper explain~ how various aspects
(

of this doctrine appeared in religious opposition fore the actual history of the opposition ful to summarize the historical evolution

to the Vietnam war.

Be-

is given, however, it will be helpof the doctrine of the just war. thought with Saint Aug-

The just war doctrine first appears in Christian ustine observed

054 - 430).

Out of his writings

came four principles which must be war: (1) the war must

in deciding on the justice of a particular authority;

be declared by a legitimate

(2) it must be waged to oppose injusfighters from

tice; (3) it must be fought with maximum effort to distinguish civilians;

(4) it must be the last resort atter peaceful means have failed.l
ends of a war would be securing peace, punishing Unjust and unacceptable evil,

Just and acceptable or uplifting

the good.

ends would be inflicting

Augustine,

however,

believed that the state was given secular authority by actual resistance to the state

God, and thus probably would have counselled only in the most extreme cases. Augustine

believed that all men desire peace, and that even those who

make wars and enjoy conflict do so to obtain a certain kind of peace which is suitable to them. And he was very much concerned with the suffering and

ha.rd.3hipwhich even just Wars bring.

He said in The City of God:

it is the wrong-doing of the opposing pa~y which compels th~ wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be a matter of grief to man because it is man's wrong-doing. Let every one, then, who thinks wi th pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. The doctrine by Thomas Aquinas. of the just war was expounded further in the 13th cent.ury

He gave three criteria by which to judge the justice

or

Page 3 a war in his Treatise ~ Faith, Hope, and Charity: (1) the authority of the in

sovereign who commands the waging of the war - since force is acceptable guaranteeing domestic peace, so it is acceptable for a legitimate

sovereign

to direct force against others in external relations;

(2) the requirement

of a just cause for war - those who are attacked must deserve it; (3) the demand that the belligerents ustine's position haTe a right intention. Aquinas accept~d Aug-

on which goals were acceptable

and which were unacc~ptaol~. tohat

Aquinas

expanded the discussion

of the just war by emphasizing

there are times when man must choose between two evils, and that it is morally acceptable He acknowledged theless believed to resist the commands of the state in certain c Lrcums tanc es , in itself, but he never-

that war was sinful and undesirable that "it is sometimes necessary

for a man to act otherwise (from the Treatise

for the common good of those with whom he is fighting." ~ Faith, Hope and Charity) So, for Aquinas

there were times when the con-

viction that all war is evil must giva wayto just wars.
Yet, on the other hand, there are also instances in which it is better to resist authority his Treatise than to obey unjust laws or support an unjust war. In

2!! Law, Aquinas said that a law was just if its end was the

common good, if its author had not exceeded his power in making the law, and if the subjects were burdened proportionately good. and in keeping with the common "such laws do not

If they do not meet all three of these criteria,

bind in conscience,

except perhaps to avoid scandal or disturbance " Also, to the Divine good, "laws of this

when dealing with laws which are contrary kind must in no way be observed, to obey God rather than men.' authorities were responsible
It

because as stated in Acts

5: 29

'we ought

Although Aquinas believed that secular what is necessar,r tor

to God tor interpreting

Page

the common

good, "if a case arise in which the observance

of that law would

be hurtful to the general welfare,

it should not be obeyed." that wars could be

So, in dealing with the just war Aquinas believed unjust, and such wars were not binding in conscience to a higher power. He also contributed

and could be repudiated the idea that man JItIlst

by adhering sometimes

choose a course which is not moral in itself, because the alter-

natives may be even more immoral. Kartin Luther

(1483 - 1546) contributed

much to the evolution

of the

ideas on the proper relationship doctrine of the priesthood

of church and state.

Luther advanced the was

of believers,

the belief that each Christian This furthered

saved by falthand secular

was a priest unto himBelf.

the idea that

and! or Church authorities

could be resisted by appeal to a higher he said,

principle.

On the subject of authority,

They have invented this, that pope, bishops, priests, cloister folk are called the spiritual estate; princes, lords, artisans, and farmers, the secular state. That's a fine custom and hypocrisy, but it shouldn't overawe anyone. For this reason: all Christians truly belong to the spiritual estate and there is no difference among them except that of calling we are all consecrated by ba.ptism to be priests, as St. Peter sa.ys, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kine;dom." As this statement shows, Martin Luther was also interested The in

making an end to the struggle between secular and spiritual power. close alliance formation

between the German state and the Lutheran church in the Retradition of strong support for the secular State. and obedience to the state was

began a Protestant

The conflict

between liberty of conscience to come.

to plague men for centuries The religious portant movement

led by John Calvin in the 16th century made imof war and obedience to the state. against secular authority for as their troubles in

contributions churches

to the questions

The Calvinist

often had to struggle

what they considered

allegiance

to a higher principle,

Page England, Ireland, Germany, and Eastern Europe demonstrate. a great opposition

G'alvinists have also demonstrated "in practice an absolute avoidable, the repudiation

to war itself, but not

of war has meant generally for Calvinists

refusal to participate

in a war believed to be, in justice, un-

but a real effort to establish a 'just and durable peace.'" 2 tradition emphasized representatiTe government and human of liberty of

The Calvinist liberty,

so the Calvinist~

were influential

in the advancement

conscience. sovereignty

Another aspect of Calvin's religion miEbt help to place the of God in opposition to the state - his concern for the power-

less and suffering.

Calvin once said, "To prove ourselves to be God's child-

ren let us beware that we lend our helping hand to such as are wrongfully persecuted and that according to the ability that God giveth us we do succor

such as are trodden under foot." In the United States there exi~ted a long tradition individual's religion, liberty of conscience, of respect for the

expressed by concern for the freedom had prepared the

ot

press, and speech.

These and other conditions to the war in Vietnam.

way for the religious

opposition

A modern contribution fore the large-scale cyclical

to the doctrine of the just war appeared just bein Vietnam began - Pope John XXIII's en-

American intervention

Pacem in Terris.

That document declared that "in this age of ours to believe that war

which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational is still an apt means of vindic ating violated rights."

THE CHURCHES AND VIETNAM A. THE CHURCHES AND THE COLD WAR BEFORE 1965

By the early 1960'., organized religion in the United States had begun
to acquire experience in political involvement and a concern with interna-

tional affairs which was to form the basis of the actions of antiwar clerics and laymen in the dome~tic campaign ese War. But American against the U. S. Policies in the Vietnam-

religion also had a history of support for the Cold effect in dampening religious op-

War, and this was also to have a powerful position to the war.

The Roman Catholic Church, in the United States and around the world, had been staunchly War II. opposed to "atheistic Communism" continued before and after World

The American hierarchy

to speak strongly against Communism Many Roman Catholic

even during the wartime alliance with Soviet Russia. churchmen

really believed that the United states was threatened by Communism, in acquiring American particularly aid in their world-wide

but they were also interested battle with 00mmunist

governments,

in Eastern Europe where the power of the church.1

Soviet Ur~on attempted to break the political The Church and the hierarchy a Catholic, gave ideological

backing to most of Truman's Cold War policies,

stro ngly supported the CIA' B selection of Nge Dinh Diem,la South Vietnam. CArdinal Spellof the 1954

to try to set up an "independent"

man of New York went so far as to advocate outright abandonment Geneva Accords means anything Southeast on Indochina:

"If Geneva and what was agreed upon there

at all, it means taps for the buried hopes of freedom in

Asia."2 element which tended to gain Church support for the American in Asia was the China issue. During and after the McCarthy have rise

Another

Cold War policies

,-ears when. the victory of the Communists

in the Chinese Revolution

to charges that the United States had "lost China," and after Chinese troops

Page 7 had participated ism. in the Korean W'ar, II18.IlY Americans feared Chinese expansion-

Chiang Kai-shek seems to have been viewed by manypeople in the United general,"3 and this maywell have accentuated support

States as "the Christian for the Nationalist

Chinese and ~toked opposition to the Communists. Chiang

was a Methodist and his governmentwas heavily favored by Christian missionaries in China, and these factors have helped distort Americanideas about

his govermnent. Another important factor was the support of Chiang by the highly influential Luce press.

However, around the time of Pope John XXIII's ascendancy, Catholic attitudes toward international relations began to change. Pope John issued his

encyclical Pacemin Terris, total

which manyCatholics took to be "a clear call for

pacifism in a nuclear age.,,4 Pope John stated in that famous document, The support

as quoted above, that war was unacceptable in the nuclear era. of the Catholic Church for such projects was clearly decreasing,

as the Cold War against Communism opposition

although the Church has never abandonedits

to those elements of Communismhich challenge the Christian conception of w man. This notable decrease in support nevertheless was to be an element in the future Catholic opposition to Vietnam policies Fundamentalist religious in the United States. and Jewish -

thought - Catholic, Protestant,

strongly emphasized anticommunism a major source of eTil,5 and such leaders as as the Reverend Billy James Hargis and the Reverend Carl McIntyre, as well as the Catholics' Cardinal Mindszenty Society, enthusiastically The political promulgated

the anticommunist gospel.

influence of the fundamentalists,

moreover, is greater than their SomeProtestant

small numbers would seem to indicate.6 stand during the Cold War.

groups maintained a pacifi8t

The Quakers, for instance, the whole direction

"opposed the draft, ,NATO, the arms race, inde&d

of Americanforeign policy. ri 1 '

Page 8

Other Protestants

supported the Cold War policies in general, but wanted and to emphasize the nation's "moral strength.n8 to

to use less harsh rhetoric, Protestant reluctance

to wholeheartedly

endorse the Cold War indicated

Richard Barn~t that "the prewar pacifist tradition in the mainstream of American Protestantism"

still was (tairly strong)

but perhaps this is overstating note

the case, especially

since, as Barnet points out, "The antimilitarist

became weaker as the Cold War continued ,,9 Another important element in understanding Protestant attitudes toward

foreign policy is the role of John Foster Dulles. powerful secretary

Dulles, who was Eisenhower's affairs arbiter

of state, had served as an international that was the procursor

for the organization ches.

of the National Council of Churforums for the strategy over the minds

This group became "one of Dulles' principal

of keeping the peace by threatening

war. ,,10 Dulles' influeme

of American Protestants is emphasized in a study by Erne~Lefavor

found that Dulles, "more than a:n:y other person, was responsible Churches respecting

which
for shaping 11

the mind of the Protestant

the postwar world."

By the time of the Johnson-Goldwater developments self.

campaign

of 1964, several important

had taken place in the churches

of America and in the.land itclergymen had

During the civil rights movement

of the early1960s

taken active parts in the political

struggles

in the Negro cause - Dr. Martin example (Dr. King, significantly,

Luther King, of course, is the most outspoken

will later denounc e the U. S. role in Vietnam in very strong term:l). Thus they had begun the practice ot involvement with secular issues which was to Another important

pave the way for religious activism in the peace movement. aspect of the churches' relationship to the government

at the time was the

effect of the Kennedy Administration particular.

on the society and on the churches in

The new national concern about and federal support for the cause

Page 9

of civil rights certainly

made clerical

activism

easier.

But the foreign and he gave more-

policy ,of the Kennedy Administration

was strongly

anticommunist

special emphasis to building up the American

military

establishment;

over, the country had just lived through the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile confrontation, and the Berlin prohLems , In this situation, one might expect

that the churches

would support a strong Cold War policy, and it is likely and laymen alike did support this idea. influential segment of organized However, as it

that most clergymen

will become clear, an an increasing interest

religion was placing to the Cold

in international itself.

affairs and opposition American

War was beginning

to manifest

church people had, for inand Congress

'j

stance, been exerting to end nuclear

sustained pressure

on the President

testing.12 of stronger pressures on American religion to question Nolde, director of Affairs, to a

An indication Cold War assumptions the Horld Council meeting

came in a speech by O. Frederick Commission

of Churches'

on International

of the U. S. Conference

of the Iforld Council

of Churches

in mid-1964.

Nolde denied that Communism "space race,".called Republic

was a monolithic

force, denounced

the U. S.-Soviet

for an end to the continued

isolating of the People's and criticized high mil-

of China from the world family of nations, calling for "mor-e speedy progress to the necessity of extending

itary budgets, He also pointed side national

in balanced disarmaments.n13

concern for human rights outhe foreshadowed the day

boundaries.

In a prophetic

statement,

when some American

churchmen

would begin to feel that the U. S. was violating domestic racism and the government's

human rights in Vietnam and to connect Vietnam policies:

The myth that human rights, especially

equitable

race relations

Page 10

and religious liberty, are a matter only of national concern JIIIl8t give way to the recognition that international involvement in what happens in any country har4 very considerably diminished the area of domestic jurisdiction. Nolde's comments illustrate that considerable intellectual ferment on the

subject of international Some clergymen election,

relations Was beginning

in American churches. in the 1964

spoke out clearly to actively participate to~the policies of Republican

often in opposition

Barry Goldwater.

The New York Times found in an infoTInal poll in 1964 that "More than 700 Episcopal position idential Bishops, clergymen and laymen have attacked Senator Goldwater's

on civil ~ight8, although they did not endorse either of the Preacandidates." The Times also found that 79 Boston area clergymen the Goldwater nomination," that Dr. Martin Luther Johnson,

and theologians

"condemned

King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders had endorsed President
I

and that a bipartisan water's

New York City Jewish periodical

was calling for Gold-

defeat.

15
on the part of clergymen and religious organ-

This unusual partisanship izations

was based partly on opposition

to Mr. Goldwater's

civil rights

stance, as the above data indicate. reason for religious involvement

However,

it seems that an even stronger

was concern over foreign policy issues - and An editorial in the

Vietnam was a very important Christian opponents Century,

issue in the 1964 election. ecumenical journal,

an influential

stated that religious

of Senator Goldwater

"did not choose but were forced into a temof ~ international policl which even

porary party alignment in its announcement sis added)

by the candidacy

sent tremors through an a1rea~

shaky world.,,16 (empha-

This "indicates that by 1964, in an eleotion in which Vietnam wws involvement in political affairs was beginning to focus

an issue, religious on foreign

policy and at least some of this activism tended to oppose a strong

Page 11

Vietnam program such as that put forward by Mr. Goldwat~r to that'later

(which vas similar

carried through by the Johnson and Nixon Administrations). development in American religion around the time of of a fundamental split

Another-important the 1964 P~esidential

campaign was "the emergence

between many clergy and many lay men and women" over the issue of the churches' involvement enon,. in social issues.17 "Indeed," said one observer of the phenomquestion facing the

"it'

one were to ask what is the most controversial

Church in America

at this juncture, the answer would probably be the involvethe clergy, in the political struggles

ment of the church and, in particular, of the time.,,18

The reasons for this divisiQn will be explored in detail

later, but it should be pointed out that this division would become decidedly more pronounced after the Vietnam escalation. summarized The feelings of many lay

people on this matter were probably

accurately by Senator Gold"The leaders of the church

water, who declared just before the election:

don't have much time to worry about morals if they're worrying about partisan politics.n19 Those lay people who opposed social involvement by the

church may have been a majority in 1964, as Leroy Davis of the School of Theology for Laymen in Cincinnati thought that year.20 However, opposition

may not have been as widespread that 47% of the American

as Davis believed;

a 1957 Gallup poll showed "should

people believed that religious institutions social and political points, to questions," by 1968.

express their views on day-to-day

and that The 1957

finding had dropped by only 7 percentage

40%,

poll found that only 44% of the American people - not a majority - wanted churches and synagogues to "keep out of political and social matters," and

that figure had risen 9 percentage

points to 54% by 1968.21

Thus, it appears

that the laity was probably about evenly divided on the question of social

Page 12 and political 8C,tivism on the part of the clergy in 1964. of the activist clergy was expressed well by Leroy Davis, illustrates many of the attitudes that were leading ~

The viewpoint and his statement clergymen

into the political arena by 1964:

Basic to Christianity is a certain social consciousness that includes convictions about the oneness of humanity; the need for intelligent and loving concern and action; the willingness to share and, if necessary, to carry the burdens of other persons and even nations; a strong judgment against selfishnes5; and the obligation to assist those who are less fortunate. These concerns come into the open when the issues of life - of basic human life - are the subject of relevant preaching and theologizing, but when this happens the gospel is thrust ~ediate1y into the maelstrom of political concern and emotion.2 Davis felt that, clearly, a majority of the clergy shared this view of Christian social responsibility, but this is doubtful. But, nevertheless, in the

years ahead there would be at least a vocal minority who would feel that "the issues of basic human life" were presented tervention emphatically by the American in-

in Vietnam, and there would likewise be another vocal minority activism on the war.

who opposed political A few comments

should be made here on the churches' view of the conflict Many churchmen were undoubtedly of American commitments government's intent

in Vietnam itself in the early 1960s. on maintaining the integrity

and credibility

around backing

the world and therefore

tended to support the American

in the Diem regime in South Vietnam.. Another

important concern of religious in 1963 in the liberal Chris-

persons was the belief expressed in an editorial tian Century:

In the event of a communist takeover in South Vietnam the fate of the Catholic minority is already sealed. About a third of the country's Catholics are refugees from the Communist takeover in North Vietnam. They know wha~3was the fate experienced by their relatives who did not flee. Although this was an oversimplification of the actual situation in Vietnam,

Page 13

the fear was undoubtedly

real, especially

among Catholic persons in the

U. S.

However,

the main thrust of the editorial was that the South Vietnamese "should (not) be

regime of the Catholic Diem and the Nhus (also Catholic) allowed to continue.,,24 ican-backed government This is an early appearance

of criticism of an Amerto the repressive Diem

regime in the South, and the opposition indicates the presence,

at least in this journal, of a concern thus, strong criticism of the government church people, though they

for the freedoms

of South Vietnamese;

in the South was present among some American still supported an anticommunist

line in foreign policy.

This was the situation in American 1964:

religious

groups at the close of

a history of anticorrununism and support of the Cold War, a growing conaffairs, and increasing political involvement. The

cern for international

stage was set for what was soon to be the active involvement leaders and organizations nam,

of religious

in the struggle against the American war in Viet-

B.

THE WAR YEARS "Once more in the Vietnam crisis we seem to be observing the Christian

churches in their familiar

role of opposing

all wars except the one th~

ISO

are

in By what right has the church of Chriet war in Vietnam, fought by American conscripts as a war nominally for liberty?

long accepted cruel guerilla alongside unwilling Vietnamese,

" the church still professes

to have a social mission, backed by a societies. What is it do-

divine power, riot recognized by ethical culture

ing to justify that belief to itself or to wistful observers like myeelf? " in an age of nuclear weapons the church at beet argues the question of our intervention Alsop.o.Where in Vietnam in terms of Walter Lippmann or Joseph

is their message to a nation, to a world, already on the brink Has the Christian church no answer to communist progress

of Wqrld War III?

but the bombs of which we have enough to destroy the world?"l- Norman Thomas, April, 1965.

The churches
.

in America were to find themselves

increasingly

confronted

with questions a national clergymen

and sentiments like these as the agony of Vietnam grew to be Following are some of the answers given by American

obsession.

during the years of the war. of more U.

The year 1965 brought the introduction raising the 1964 total of 23,300 to 184,300, 1,369 of those killed, 6,114 wounded. bombing

s.

troops in Vietnam,

and the casualty figures showed Johnson began large-scale of the

President

raids on North Vietnam, and started an aggressive prosecution

war on the ground. We have already seen that many clergymen through the civil rights movement becoming profoundly interested had become involved in politics

and the 1964 election, and that they were affairs.. Vietnam had been

in international

~---

-~---------

Page 15 a major issue in the Presidential gun to be concerned election, so the churches had already beHowever, in early 1965 D. C., got

about that particular

situation.

an antiwar petition which was circulated only 105 signers out of the 705 religio~ requested President

in the area of Washington, leaders approached.

The petition

Johnson to initiate action which would lead to a Vietnamthough, in its

ese cease-fire. ecumenical

The response to the petition is significant,

nature.

The signers included one Roman Catholic priest, six rab-

bis, nine Baptists, ing come laymen. Washington explanation volvement

40 MethOdists,

five Presbyterians,

and

44 others,

includ-

One clergyman,

Dean Francis B. Sayre of the Episcopal of his reluctance to sign, an in later debates about clerical into know as In reply

Cathedral,

wrote an explanation

which was to become familiar in politics: "As a minister

I don't feel competent

well as the President's

techni.cal advisers what should be done." Protestant ecumenical

to Dean Sayre, the influential ~

1

journal Christian ~"Doea

showed its already strong antiwar stance by editorializing: need technical

a Christian

skills to determine whether ceasing to kill human we know as much as we need to know about

beings is better than killing? Vietnam to conclude

that we cannot beat our way out of the blunder we stumto the war, with deep conto manifest itself

bled into in southeast Asia.,,2 Strong opposition cern over the destruction among religious

of human life, was beginning

leaders at this time.

It was also in early 1965 when Jesuits Daniel and Philip BerFigan became the first Catholic priests to openly oppose the war in Vietnam.3 These

were the two men who were to become "well known as the shock troops of the peace movement, the idols of the Catholic New Left, the Church's most militant Father Philip Berrigan harsh even

and prolific writers on pacifism and c1 viI rights. n4 made the following

statement, which would have been considered

Page 16 in 1970, while he was a priest in Orange County, California, in 1965:

We have never admitted that the war is a civil war, because admitting thie would be tantamount to admitting that we had no right to be there, that no recognized government had invited us in, that we were opposing international agreement, and the increasing scale or our aggression was punishing a popular uprising. The ract is that we broke the Geneva Agreements of 1954 and have no present intention of returning to them, tftat we do seek a wider war and prove it amply by our daily actions. 5 Father Berrigan participation was also incensed at the lack of activism against American in the Vietnam war on the part of the U. S. churches:

The American Church, in regard to Vietnam, has already reached the measure of default of the German Church under Hitler, and a position far less defensible, since in speaking of the immorality of Hitler's aggressive wars the Ge~ Church had to oonfront a totalitarian regime, and we do not. Few religious Father Berrigan, leaders would have gone so rar in their comments as did

but many themes important

to the religious leaders' role in deep disaffection with

the peace movement the Saigon

can be seen in these statements:

government,

the concern over apparent violations revolutionaries as representing

or

international a genuine "popand the belief

law, a view of the Vietnamese ular uprising," that churches

a horror at the increasing

scale of violence,

had a profound responsibility policy.

to oppose what many saw as an

immoral national

The Berrigans, movement,"7 the Catholic

who were to find themselves their work throughout

"leaders of the entire peace from

continued

1965, despite persecution

hierarchy.

Philip Berrigan was ordered in the spring of that

year to be silent on the subject of Vietnam, and he complied for three months. The action taken against his brother Daniel late in that year was much more serious. Father Daniel Berrigan was associate well-Imown social activist. editor of Jesuit Mission and a

In late 1965 he was ordered by his superiors

Page

17

to withdraw

from an antiwar group called Clergy Concerned About Vietnam to "a prolonged assignment" in Cuernavaca, Mexico,

and he was transferred his "church

If

e(J.ui valent of 91 beria.

,,8

(a similar Msignment

was given to

Father Daniel Kilfoyle of St. Peter's College, the peace movement)

who had also been active in Sem1na.ry:, in

Dr. Abraham Heschel of the Jewish Theological two of Father Berrigan's saying:

and the Rev. Richard John Newhaus, Cl.ergy Concerned, appreciate offensive Christian

associates

issued a joint statement

"We find it difficult to

a form of religious authority

that is exercised in a mariner understanding of human dignity. ,,9 that the two priests' authority to

to our common Jewish and Christian

Centurz felt that "the evidence is convincing" were "a highhanded

reassignments

exercise of ecclesiastical

silence priests who champion unpopular in the Vietnamese of this treatment war.10

views of United States involvement protest within the Church and he was allowed to return

There was considerable however,

of Father Berrigan,

to the United States early the next year; Kilfoyle was also allowed to return and resume activities with the peace movement. Nevertheless, other

priests were sent away or ordered to get out of Clergy Concerned.ll There was more involved in the Berrigans' the war alone. and passionate enon ," because Ms. Francine protests than opposition to

du Plessix Gray believes that the extreme form

content of their protests were "a uniquely Catholic phenom"their anger is just as much directed at the blind nationalism Daniel Berrigan described his and

of their Church as at the Vietnam war. ,,12 Philip's situation

in the Catholic Church like this:

We were members of a church whose main word, whether we liked it or not, was revolutionary. The revolution only really began to

Page 18 ,march much later. No matter, the bomb was buried; it needed only to be detonated And then the sixties arrived, and the Vietnam war f'ueled itself' into a f'ury. The Catholics joined communities of protest across the nation, a f'ire wall against that monstrous f'ireRevolution? Ihe score (let me be arrogant f'or a moment) is not a total loss. J One should not conclude from the Berrigans' most American Catholics, policies. Catholics experiences, however, that Moat

were against U. S. Participation supported

in the war.

especially

in the hierarchy,

President Johnson's war

For example, in 1965, when-Francis

Cardinal Spellman of New York

during a visit in Saigon was asked to comment on the United States' policy in Vietnam, he declared, ''My country, may it always be right. Right or

wrong, my country. ,,1.4 the Vietnam

And the American Catholic bishops remained silent on 1965.

issue throughout

In early 1965, religious leaders began to ask more and more questions about the U. S. government's the criticisms about America's commitment to the South Vietnamese regime. Often

were apparently more "practical"

than "moral," such as doubts But religious leaders

military capacity to achieve victory.

were also disturbed because of the apparent lack of support for war among the American people, and the secrecy surrounding death tolls mo~ted, religious Vietnam policy was unsettling.

And as American

leaders and others began to government inadequate

ask more and more about exactly what it was that the American wanted in Vietnam; as explanations

"vague salutes to freedom,,15 wer~ increasingly

of U. S. policy. Council of Churches issued a proposal to employ the United while O. Frederick Nolde of the Comappealed

The National Nations mission

to achieve a Vietnam settlement, on International

Affairs of the World Council of Churches Another call for negotiation

for immediate

negotiations.

was sent to offi-

ciala of the Johnson Administration

by the United Church of Christ's Council

Page 19 for Christian Social Action's 27 elected members,

by

the head of the UniverBoard of Chris-

salist Association,

and by staff and officers

of the Methodist

tian Social Cone ems .16 One important Administration's religious leader who began in 1965 to oppose the Johneon He

Vietnam policies was the Rev. Dr. Hartin Luther King. situation in mid-year;

began to express concern over the Vietnam

on July 2.

he went so far as to say that the war "must be stopped" be a negotiated National settlement. We must even negotiate

and that there "must (the which

with the Vietcong

Liberation

Front, the revolutionary

forces in South Vietnam)",

the President

was refusing to do.

iVhile King said on this occasion that "We rTWe' not going to defeat Comre

can never accept Communism,"

he also believed

munism with bombs and guns and gases We must work this out in the framework of our democracy. ,,17 In early August, King called again for a negotiated rTWar is obsolete. between violence No nation today can win a war. and nonviolence. settlement, saYing,

It is no longer a choice (non) violence and

It is a choice between

nonexistence.n18

A few days later he reiterated

his belief that the U. S. Front (NLF), and said and as a clergy-

should agree to negotiate he would continue

with the National Liberation

to speak on Vietnam prophetic

as an "ordinary citizen" tradition.19

man in the Judeo-Christian

On August 12, King announced

that he was sending appeals asking for an Peking, and Hoscow. board of the Southern headed by King. Johnson

end to the war to Hanoi, s'aigon, the NLF, Washington, His action had the unanimous Christian Leadership Council, approval of the executive

the civil rights organization that day, he suggested

And in a speech in Birmingham "consider halting

that President

the bombing of North Vietnam"

and declared that he wanted

Page 20

Washington

to give "unconditional

and unambiguous

statements"

on the willing-

ness of the U.S. to negotiate with the NLF~ with the NLF was the only actual criticism policies,

However,

the failure to negotiate war

he had of the President's

and he went so far as to say that his letter to the various governJohnson has demonstrated governments. ,,20 of King's position, he a greater

ments would "make it clear that President deSire to negotiate

than the Hanoi and Peking

But, of more importance also explained menting

for our understanding

why he had held back for several months before publicly comin peace demonstrations

on the war (his wife had been participating His explanation

prior to that time, however).

is illuminating:

We have neither the resources nor the energy to organir-e demonstrations on the peace question. It's physically impossible to go all out on the peac e question and all out on the Civil Rights question. I held back until it got to the point that I felt I had to speak out. The time is so potentially destructive and dangerous that the whole survival of humanity is at stake. The true ene~ is war itself, and ~eople on both sides are trappe~ in its inexorable destruction.2 In early November, he again connected position as a clergyman: his opposition to war with his

"I have made it very clear that as a minister of I must cry out when I see war escalated

the gospel I consider war an evil. at a:ny point."

He also raised another point of concern to him - his belief

that "we are coming to a very tragic point in this country when we confuse dissent with disloyalty, and accuse dissenters of being traiters.,,22

The reason King has been quoted at some length above is that his statements illustrate opponents conscience many of the concerns which were important to the religious as a courageous man of

of the war; he was also widely recognized and a moral leader.

He was the holder of a Nobel Peace Prize.

And his early positions

are important because he was to later influence others

and because his thinking on the Vietnam issue seams to parallel many others.

Page 21

Four main observations

should be made from his statements the peace movement

above.

First, King was supporting

(to a limited extent at

this time) not as merely an "ordinary citizen," gospel" in the prophetic tradition.

but as a "minister of the

This showed that he was thinking of the

war in highly moral terms and that he would not refuse to attack the American government over the war if that were necessary. the "inexorable destruction" Furthermore, he had

begun to criticize itself "obsolete" compulsion speak ~;"

inherent in war, which was

and the "true enemy," and had started to do so out of moral.

- "I held back until it got to the point that

.!.

felt

!~

to King,

",!

must cry out when I see war escalated believed

at any point."

as with many other clergymen, America had a religious Vietnam war. Second, his positions

as early as 1965 that the church in

obligation

to address it self to the problems of the

reveal the growing sense of internationalism section.

within

the church which we noted in the background for a negotiated national laws. settlement, which reflects

He calls again and again

a belief in the need for inter-

Also, for the next few years, many persons in the peace movesettlement, and would oppose unilateral U.S.

ment would demand a negotiated withdrawal,

which was being advocated by many student dissenters.

The atmos-

phere of the Cold war was also losing its hold on the minds of many religious leaders King's - Comnuni sm cannot be defeated statements "with bombs and guns and gases " Dr. over the destructiveness of modern destruc-

also show deep concern nuclear weapons:

technology,

particularly

"The time is so potentially

tive and dangerous" and non-existence";

that the only choice for humanity

"No nation today can win a war."

is between "(non) violence King also provides an

example of the transnational

consciousness

which had been growing - for him of humanity." (This did not

nothing less was at stake than "the whole surviv

Page 22

seem then so much like hyperbole frontation ~tatement

as it does in retrospect; po~sibility

great-power conThis

over Vietnam was a much-feared

at the time.)

shows that King was looking at humanity,

not tribe or clan or na-

tion, as the modern

"survival group," an important, concept which is treated

at some length below. Third, King and others were beginning nam and domestic prolems. "unconditional to see connections between Vietto make

The refusal of the Johnson Administration statements"on their willingness

and unambiguous

to negotiate

with the NLF was beginning to raise questions est officials of the American government

about the candor of the high-

and about whether their intentions - of the Johnson AdMr. John-

were really peaceful. ministration

The integrity - the legitimacy

was beginning to erode in the eyes of many persons.

son's :infamous "credibility over the government's leaders.

gap" had begun to open. .King expressed concern as did many other religious of

response to dissenters,

This raised even more question~

about the candor and legitimacy

the Administration,

and many persons felt that dissenters were being mistreat-

.ed and unfairly maligned for expressing their convictions. A fourth and final observation that his opposition about King's statement~ on the war is about the relationship One is the fact that the

brings up several considerations

of the factor of race to the Vietnam intervention. civil rights movement overlapping.

and the peace movement were aometdmes similar and even activists had enjoyed tremendous suc-

As we have seen, clerical

cess in the civil rights movement given clergymen

and the 1964 election; those campaigns had work and had gotten them actively

experience with political

involved in the social and political expressed

issues of the ,day. The hope was often battles could be emulated by

that success in the earlier political

the peace movement.

The peace and civil righte crusades had akso been over-

Page 23

lapping in that many of the same humanitarian many. individuals had participated

motivations

were present and

in both movements

- King, for instance. he brought with him not

When King gave his support to the antiwar movement,

only his personal prestige but some of the moral authority of the civil rights movement, as well. His presence would also encourage black people conduct of the war. The

and civil rights leaders to oppose Mr. Johnson's unanimous

support of SCLC's executive board for his appeal to various governof this. Secondly, Dr. King touched on problems impossible" to give

menta is one illustration of diverted

resources when he said it was "physically

full effort to peace work and civil r-Lght.s work. be that national

The corollary problem would at

resources would be diverted from social reconstruction in Vietnam,

home to mass destruction size later. Thirdly,

a point which King himself would empha-

there is the question of racism in the United States'

Vietnam policy.

King himself did not make such a connection publicly in Nevertheless, the fact alone that the to speak

1965, although he would do so later.

country's

greatest civil rights leader would feel morally compelled

out on the problem of Vietnam would seam to indicate possible affinities between the two problems he was attacking. A link between white racism in

the U. S. and the Vietnam war was being made in 1965, and it would have much wider appeal later. Philip Berrigan: Do you honestly expect that we could so abuse our own Negro citizens for three hundred and forty years, so resist their moral and democratic rights, so mistreat, exploit, starve, terrorize, rape, and murder them without all this showing itself in foreign policy? Is it possible for us to be vicious, brutal, immoral, and violent at home and be fair, judicious, beneficient, and idealistic abroad?23 Issues like these were raised by King and many other religious leaders in 1965. King's experience typifies the experience of
IIl8IlY'

Probably the most visceral

example in 1965 comes from

other religious

Page

24

peace activists. paralleled

His stance became increasingly

antiwar, and in this he

and proceeded many others. action in the peace moveReligion was

One of the most moving stories of the religious ment is that of Norman Morrison, the dominant a 31-year-old

Quaker pacifist.

I . power ~n his life, and he brought a deep religious passion to - civil rights and the peace movement. 24 On November 2,

his two great concerns

1965, he doused himself with gasoline or kerosene in front of the Pentagon and set himself ablaze. He gave his life, said his wife afterwards "to ex-

press his concern over the great loss of life and human suffering caused by the war in Vietriam."25 The ~ashington Post reported several weeks later that and a vis-

a stamp bearing Morrison's

picture was on sale in North Vietnam,26

itor to Hanoi in 1968 reported that on the wall of every classroom his group visited was a portrait of Norman Morrison.27 While he was certainly an extreme case, Morrison religiously is a very clear exam-

ple of a person deeply, passionately, in Vietnam. These words, written

opposed to the U. S. role

shortly he-forehis death, describe something of the religious peace

of his outlook, activists,

and explain some of the motivation the Quakers:

especially

The Church of the Spirit is always being built. It possesses no other kinq of power and authority than the power and authority of personal lives, formed into a community by the vitality of the divine human encounter. Quakers seek to begin with life, not with theory or report. The life is mightier than the book which reports it. The most important thing in the world is that our faith becomes living experience and deed of life.2~ The first Jewish opposition to the government's in 1965. In June, the Central Conference Vietnam policy also came

of American Rabbis, an influential

Reform Jewish group, assailed U. S. policy as a violation of the United Nations charter.29 Two days before, the Conference was told by Rabbi Leon I Feuer

Page

25

of Toledo

that Reform rabbis should "always be in the vanguard - even to - in the struggle to abolish forever the a step-up in the fighting of recency peace overtures "arbitrary.,,30 There

the point of civil disobedience horrors of war."

He also criticized

by the U. S. and tenned recent American was some opposition

to this action among American

Jews, as was demonstrated

by Rabbi Louis L Newman, who attacked the conference 'a action and declared, "Let us hold up our President's leaders come. Inter-faith action was frequent. In May of 1965, 900 Protestant, Cathhands in the hour of crisia.,,31 Many Jewish

and laymen were to take part in the peace movement

in the years to

olic, and Jewish leaders carrying fore the Pentagon.32 suffering escalation involved

signs conducted

a silent six-hour vigil be-

The clergymen in the struggle

were 'appalled by the human tragedy and in Vietnam"; they were disturbed over the

of the war, especially

the bombing,

and called for peace talks Emergency Commit-

which would include the NLF.33 tee for Vietnam" Bent a 12-member opposition - representing

In mid-year,

a "Clergymen's

3,000 Cat.ho.Hc s , Jews, and Protestants to Vietnam.J4

"ministry of reconciliation"

The religious

to the war was becoming strong and broadening, to the increased

as well. the

Many factors contributed continual stepping-up

concern among clerics:

of the war, student protests, of dissenters draft-age

and even President JohnThe draft and

son's vitriolic

denunciations confronting

all contributed.

the moral problems clergymen

young men were important in having

become more actively antiwar. the National Conference of Churches, "the most important

In December, Protestant bombing

organization

in the United States,n35

asked for an end to the

of the North as a preliminary

to peace talks, called for joint peace and declared that U. S. policy would

efforts by the UN and "concerned"

members,

Page 26

not bring peace. of thought

And this major Protestant

body revealed an important

trend

in American

religion by connecting

Vietnam policy with white racism:

We believe that if the United States follows a unilateral policy in Vietnam, no conceivable victory there can compensate for the distrust and hatred of the United States that is being generated each day throughout the world because we are seen as a predominantly white nation using our gverwhelm1 rg military strength to kill more and more Asians.)

By the last of 1965, clerical opposition to the war was becoming more
and more militant, because of the increase in the level of fighting and skepIn early November, a About

ticism over the intentions group of distinguished Vietnam

of the U. S. government.

churchmen

formed a g roup called Clergy Concerned About Vietnam) was formed.

(later Clergy and Laity Concerned

Rabbi

Abraham Heschel, "I have previously at killing

a respected Jewish scholar and spokesman for the group, said, thought that we vere waging war reluctantly, with sadness

so many people.

I realize now that we are doing it now with pride In its first public meeting, the group declared according to our religious convictions, is

in our military

efficiency."37 in Vietnam,

that "the conflict not a just war."

The group began to stage rallies, in Vietnam.

vigils, fasts, etc., to of this

protest the U. S. involvement group had considerable

"The clerical composition

shock value in a country where, by and large, churchparticipation in this group,

men had stayed away from politics. ,,38 Catholic for a variety of reasons, was small.

Polls on religious to see how the American tion in 1965.

opinions on the war are few, but it should be helpful public in general was reacting to the Vietnam situa-

A Harris poll released in early February approving the "retaliatory bombings

showed that 8)% of the Americans

of North Vietnan,"

15%

wanting

"eventual"

negotiations

but not at that time, and 79% believing

"that a United States

Page 27 withdra~al Harris from Asia would 'doom' South~ast Asia 'to a Communist takeover.,H39 of the mainstream of popular

gave the following characterization

opinion at that time: We should shore up the effort of the South Vietnamese to resist further Comm~st advances, use retaliatory air strikes only untiQ' w~ have made enough show of power so that the Comm~st8 can see we will not yield, then finally negotiate a settlement. By April, the Harris poll was finding Cies, 43% opposed.41 What did these polls mean? "All they prove," in James Reston's words

57%

in support of Johnson's poli-

later in the year, "is that the American people rally round the flag in trouble.

,,42

People had become accustomed in foreign affairs.

to following clerical

the leadership

of

the President

Substantial

opinion, however, was Nevertheless,

already sharply critical of U. S. policy, as we have just seen. as Newsweek supports

put it, flthemajority of clergy and laymen alike doubtless on the war at that time.43

the Administration"

Religious

action in the year 1965 has been treated at some length beimportance. Many of the important issues, such as

cause of its particular bombing,

racism, the fIust war" doctrine were raised in that year; many of j leaders were coming to the fore; many of the forms of protest - appeared; opinions on the war, the

the important

rallies, vigils, symbolic destruction

draft, and the right of dissent had been formed and had already begun to harden; the clerical activists passed from their euphoria of success in civil moral opposition to the policies

rights and the 1964 election to increasing of the govermnent.

The peace movement was born, and clergymen were already For the next years, brief~r summaries will suf-

taking their places in it. fice to indicate giOM element.

the level and direction of the peace movement and its reli-

Page 28

1966 found the U. S. making peace overtures to the North Vietnamese, who rebuffed them. The war escalated as the Americans and South Vietnamese stop-

ped the Communist

advances of the year by heavy boni>ing and increasing numThe Congr-es ef.onal, appro-

bers of "search and destroy" missions in the South. priations

for the war were over $13 billion that year, and U. S. troop levels Out of that number,5,OOB were killed and 30,093 were

rose to 385,300. wounded.

in 1966, relief work in Vietnam by American begun to increase rather rapidly. A Mennonite

religious organizations

had

Central Relief Committee had

a small relief and medical team in South Vietnam since 1965,44 and other groups such as the American Friends Service Committee began to make more efforts as the war went on and casualties The situation at the beginning mounted up. "The moment is

of the year was tense.

c ruc Lal ;" said Yale's chaplain William Sloane Coffin, "for it may well be that (if) we decide on all-out escalation of the war in Vietnam,then to

all intents and purposes of the human soul we may be s~'45 Concerned

The Clergy

About Vietnam again called for an end to the bombing, negotiations In a telegram to President Johnson, for humane purposes

with the NLF, and an end to escalation. Clergy Concerned

also asked "that economic development

at home and abroad be given budgetary Here we can see developing diversion

priority over military spending."46 between domestic improvement and the The

a connection

of funds, not only to the war, but to "military spending."

focus of the peace movement

and the church was coming to include basic quessociety itself. of phil-

tions about the s t ruc tur-e of American

This expanding focus was illustrated by Robert Holmes, professor osophy at the University "The contemporary of Rochester,

in an article in Christian Century.

Christian in this country finds himself in the uncomfort-

Page 29

able position recomile

of professing

convictions

which are increasingly

difficult to

with the expanding military ventures undertaken

in his name by the

government." and foreign

He argued that the present tensions between Chrietian ,principle policy were so great at present that they "pose a problem to in conscience must attend, because they symptomize a

which every Christian

threat to the very conditions Holmes believed

under which Christianity

itself can survive.,,47

that church people should subject their government to judgQ

ment by Christian article indicated

principles,

in specific as well as general terms. willingness

Holmes'

the increasing

of religious leaders to criti-

cize their government

on the basis of higher loyalties. the bishops of the naOne of their number

While there was some oppostion from Catholics, tion were still refraining sponsored from comment on the war. in Washington

a peace conference

in early 1966, but such gesturee silence seemed to have some

b~ bishOps were rare.48 meaning nevertheless. it:

However, the bishops As Commonweal,

a liberal Catholic journal explained

Silence (on the part of the bishops) does not even achieve a sort of bleak neutrality, since it tends to come down on one side of the controversy - as a form of endorsement of current ends and means, since the popular assumption is that our most prominent moral leaders would certainly speak out if they saw serious moral deviations in our conduct of the war.49 One exception was Lawrence to the silence in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church

Cardinal Shehan of Baltimore.

In a pastoral letter he stressed "to

the traditional

doctrine of the just war and> the "duty" of the Christian

care about the overriding moral issues of modern warfare."' On the subject of Vietnam, nam be just. he emphasized "that only on moral grounds can our course in Viet-

If our means become immoral, our cause will have been betray-ed.1t50

;>'

"

Page 30

Shehan

(and Cardinal Cushing as well) tried to abate chauvinistic

patriotism, Common-

but there was little moral discussion weal noted at the end of the year: tholicism Catholics,

on Vietnam in specific terms. "No significant

segment of American CaMost

has been awakened by the Pope's pleas to stop the killing. like the bishops, are divided into superpatriots

or dazed byatand-

ers who admit Vietnam is a great moral issue but seem to have nothing much else to offer.,,5l The continued American religion. war was drawing mor-ec r-tt.Lc Lem from all major sectors of More and more churchmen national resources were coming to believe that the

war was distracting

and concern from domestic problems. in Vietnam raised questions

Also, the large number of civilian casualties as to whether the government's

actions there were really helping to advance "Nobody," said a disgusted Dan Ber-

freedom and social justice in Vietnam. rigan, "including

our friends and allies - buys our vision of the war." Council of Churches broadened its role in

In early 1966, the National the peace movement, peace groups.

and began working more closely with Catholic and Jewish to call for negotiations with NLF, an

The NCC continued

end to the bombing,

submission of the conflict on Vietnam,

to the United Nations, more

openness from the Administration pression. Many religious

and opposition to domestic re-

leaders, dee~ly disturbed

over what was increasingly their condemand dehuman-

seen as the moral dimensions nation of American izing elements policy.

of the Vietnam War, accelerated The bitterness,

self-righteousness,

of the war, the "body counts" and massive impersonal destrucand cynicism at home, were fast eroding the governIn response, however, the Administration of-

tion, the repression

me~t's support on Vietnam.52

Page

31

fered little in the way of moral argument. Phil Berrigan in late

Dean Rusk, for example, told

1966: 1966,

"I leave all morality up to you clergymen. a New ~

,,53

In late January of opinion indicated

Times informal sampling of public bombing of the North.54

general approval of the just-resumed

In March, a national poll showed cies,

50%

approval of the Johnson war poli-

33%

against, and

17%

undecided.55

A few days later, a poll suggested with the National Liberation

that most Americans Front, although

would favor negotiations would have preferred meant is difficult somewhat.

60%

all-out war over withdrawal.56 to say, but it appears that sup-

What these statistics

port for the war was weakening By May, the President's more isolation

popularity

was at a low point.

Some desire for

from other nations was becoming more prevalent

evident and pacifist sentiby this time most of the

ment was becoming criticism calation, dissenters

Significantly,

of the conduct of the war was coming not from whose who wanted esbut from those who preferred were outnumbering to take less risks. The "dovish"

the "hawkish" ones.57

In September, policies, opposition.

a Gallup poll found 43% of the people supporting Johnson's This poll also showed the nature of the religious

40%

opposing.

Jewish t}pinion waa equally divided,

41%

for and

41%

against, al-

though many Jewish leaders had bitterly criticized ion supported the President

the war.

Catholic opin-

54%-31%,

and Protestants

were opposed,

43%-39%.

The silence of the Catholic hierarchy probably had much to do with the noticeably lesser amount of Catholic opposition. By

1967,

the cost of the war was rising at the rate of $2 billion a month.

Elections

were held in South Vietnam that year, making Nguyen Van Thieu PresBy year's end, American troop levels

ident and Nguyen Cao Ky Vice-President.

Page 32

were up to 485,600, with 9,378 killed and 62,025 wounded. In 1967, religious opposition grew steadily and began to be widely no-

ticed as the war and the draft aroused ever more vehement protest in the nation. Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam became a focus for such re- . uncommitted relig-

ligiously-oriented ious publications addressed

antiwar activity, and many previously came out against the war.

The Roman Catholic journal Critic

the problem in blunt terms: issue.

" the war can no longer be consid-

ered merely a political citizens as individuals

Rather, it is a moral issue which American To us only one con-

must resolve for themselves.

clusion seems valid: Nam.,,58 American

the United States should get the hell out of Viet

deaths rose to a total of over 13,000 that year, and the

country was getting angry. In a sermon in November, Rector Cotesworth Pinckney Lewis addressed

President Johnson, who was sitting the the frontrcw, on Vietnam. Demanding
"some logical, straightforward explanation" for the American role in the war,59 this is the only war

Rev. Lewis declared:

"rle are appalled that apparently

in our history which has had three times as many civilian as military casualties. It is particularly regretable that to most nations of the world the This story is notable,

struggle's

purpose appears to be neo-colonialism."60

because it illustrates

the extent of division and the intensity of passion It's effects reached inas a matter of per-

caused in the United States by the war in Vietnam.

.to every area of national life, and was widely perceived sonal moral responsibility beleagured President, for individual citizens.

And the increasingly

conducting

an unpopular war, could not escape the burIt would be difficult to underes-

den of Vietnam

even in Sunday sermons.

timate the significance

of Vietnam as a moral issue, a crisis of conscience

Page 33 for government, for religion, and for individual~.

The moral impact of Vietnam also spread into the civil rights movement. This was dramatically illuet.rated in April, when Martin Luther King,

who had once vowed never to appear on the same platform with "Black Power" advocate Stokely Carmichael, michael abandoned that promise and appeared with CarWhile King

at a rally at the UN to denounce the war in Vietnam. at most explicitly

noted that only 10 million Americans he emphasized the academic

opposed the war,

that the opponents included many of "our deepest thinkers in and intellectual community." America, "which initiated so

much of the revolutionary counter-revolutionary

spirit of the modern world," had become "an arch Cried the world famous civil rights leader: Let us save American

nation."

"Let us save our national honor - stop the bombing. lives and Vietnamese

lives - stop the bombing Let oUr voices ring out people are not vainglorious conquerors -

across the land to say the American stop the bombing.,,6l King's outspoken cause of his personal

opposition to the war was particularly stature and his position the effectiveness

significant,

be-

in the civil rights movement. of the movement by so strongsoul becomes

He appeared to be endangering

ly and openly opposing the war, but he felt that "If America's truly poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam."

For King, the

moral issue there was far too great to be ignored.

But he also felt that because the war was and was thus "an ene~

the civil rights movement and the war were connected, diverting resources needed for domestic improvement

of the poor."

Also, blacks were dYing in the war in far greater proportions of the U. S., and the country waa

than whites relative to the population "repeatedly

faced with the cruel iroIl1' watching Negro and white boys of

Page )4

on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them in the same schools.,,62 Moreover, n~ture. King's opposition was significant for its profoundly religious he was "bound by

He felt that because of his Christian ministry,

allegiances

and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism." he said, "to speak for the victims of our nation and for

''We are called,"

those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.,,6) By 1967, there were 26 different programs volunteer agencies working in relief The largest

in Vietnam, and most were U. S - and religious-based. and the Protestant's

was the Catholic Relief Services,

main relief agency World-wide

was the Viet Nam Christian Service. Evangelization Crusade sponsored

Even the conservative in Danang.64

a leprosarium

By this time, most of the major Protestant

denominations

felt that

they should take some sort of position on the war, even if it meant tension in their churches. In April, the Methodist cease-fire Board of Christian Social Concerns with the NLF.65 The

called for a unilateral Southern Baptist

and negotiations

Convention

"received" in June a resolution on world peace edge" which prob-

from the Christian

Life Commt.ssd.on , the SBC' s "socially conscious

was mildly worded but called for "peaceful settlement lems." The resolution emphasized

of international

"the personal tragedy, the great sorrow,

and the fantastic

cost" of the Vietnam war.66 also began to

The silence in the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy break. The distinguished Roman Catholic

Archbishop Paul J. Halliman of Atin) Clergy and Lay-

lanta expressed men Concerned,

his support of (though not membership and mentioned

several moral issues on which he felt were so

Page 35

clear that they needed no debate: indiscriminate destruction and/or methodical extermination of citie8 and peoples; the acknowledgment of the courage of the honest soldier and the honest pacifist; escalation and overkill} full access to all necessary facts from civil and military leadership; the use of international bodies working for peace, like the United Nations.67 The depth of opposition was shown by an October Gallup poll which found that 20 million Americans sider it who had oro e approved of the war had come to conThis poll found 41% of American adults

"a mistake" since 1965. the war.68

disapproving

A Harris poll in July had shown that 18% of the whole adult population were "extreme hawks," 40% "modest hawks," 36% moderate treme doves." Curiously, doves," and 6% "ex-

Newseek had found that a year before, three times as in 1967.69

as many persons favored withdrawal

At this time most American churches appeared unable to evaluate the ethical implications silent. of the war, and most of the local clergy were still and campaigns to involve had been unsuccessful.

Vocal support for the war was appearing,

local congregations Furthermore,

and laymen in antiwar activities

the impact of clerical dissent on Congress appeared to be small Strangely enough, the above-mentioned Harris poll found

or nonexistent. that Catholic differing

laymen tended to be slightly more dovish than Protestants,70 from the previous year. This discrepancy is probably due

markedly

to inadquacies

in polling techniques

rather than actual shifts in opinion. it is impossible to tell.

Which version is more accurate, however, The vocal supporters important.

of the war in American

religion were becoming more

Francis Cardinal Spellman, for instance, called Vietnam a "war and called for an unqualified "had developed victory.
By 1967, the Cath-

for civilization"

olic Church in America

an unprecedented

division over the

Page 36 Vietnam war." Leading Catholic theologians role in Vietnam,while and the liberal Catholic press, conservative publications, most And

opposed the American of the bishops, .in Protestant themselves

and probably most laymen were in support of the war.7l

churches, many persons felt that the churches were involving activity. opponents of the war were of the war.

too heavily in political

By late 1967 and early 1968, many religious becoming

bitter and even more vitriolic in their denunciations

And by now, criticism government

of the war was expanding into harsh attacks on the In October, 1967, the Conference on Church and

and society.

Society sponsored leaders to promote

by the National Council of Churches, a nationwide

called on religious

strike in the event of an invasion of North

Vietnam, to give sanctuary to draft dodgers, and to accept violence as an acceptable Benjamin response to certain social evils. In January of 1968, Dr.

Spock and Yale Chaplain ;~illiam Sloane Coffin were arrested on

charges arising from a draft protest, and the ground was being laid for the first of the major political trials of the Vietnam era. In 1968, Allied forces were unable to gain a decisive victory over the opposing forces. revolutionary The Tet offensive in February showed the ability of the capitals in

forces to mount attacks on most of the provincial heavy damage. American

the South, often inflicting

troop levels were 535,500 The shock of the Tet .

at year's end, with 14,592 killed and 92,820 wounded. offensive, the mounting casualties inflationary and financial pressures,

expense, regular TV cova new tax surcharge, anti-

erage of the fighting, war demonstrators, Kennedy,

and the strongly antiwar bids of Eugene McCarthy, Robert all helped to bring home the cost of the war President Johnson also raised hopes

and George HcGovern

and to shift public opinion against it.

Page 37

for an end of the war by halting bombing At the beginning

raids on the ~orth in Nove!nber. the domestic pos-

of 1968, before the Tet offensive, was precarious,

ition of the Johnson Administration lack of public credibility. ians, were protesting

in part because of its seminar-

More and more young men, particularly

the war and the draft, and Johnson could not win supJohnson was in a poshis own political among mature,

port at home for new taxes or Great Society programs. ition such that any escalation strength, morally States,

of the war would undermine

heading into an election year. sensitive people

"A growing consensus integrity

(was) that the spiritual

of the United could not be se-

rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian

tradition,"

cured by the current Vietnam policy.72 The Tet offensive of early 1968 was decisive in turning American opin-

ion against the war in Vietnam and the policies And the candidacy nomination of Senator Eugene McCarthy

of the Johnson Administration. Presidential

for the Democratic

showed that the public was deeply dissatisfied McCarthy's early successes

with the Johnson to retire from

Administration. the campaign portant

led the President

for the Democratic

norr..ination. Religious because McCarthy's

influences were imfeelings against the

to the McCarthy

candidacy,

war rose from his own deep religious convictions ported and encouraged After Johnson's war activities by many clergymen. withdrawal

and his campaign was sup-

from the race, the nature of religious There was still distinctly character religious

antiopposi-

became obscured.

tion, to be sure, but its religious been before. Opposition

was not as important

as it had

to the war was now widespread,

and Nixon was elected

on a pledge to end the war in Vietnam.

The antiwar movement now had a much religious opposition appeared to

broader base, and after the Tet offensive,

Page 38 be "indistinguishable from general public disillusionment with the war. "73

The role of religion in the peace movement until the movement

itself remained much the same,

lost most of its steam in 1971. religious character of antiwar protest guesses can be made. One

The reasons that the di~tinctly

faded after 1968 are obscur-ed.; but some tentative reason is that when President Johnson withdrew resist further had accomplished government McCarthy,

from the race and decided to

escalation of the U. S. role in Indochina, the peace movement one of its main objectives, The successes to turn the attitude of the of the three antiwar Democrats -

on the war around. Kennedy, and McGovern

- had shown that there was a desire in the both Hubert Humphrey and

country to bring the war to a close, and eventually Richard Nixon promised some sort of conclusion tial campaigns. The nation and the government

to the war in their Presidenhad accepted. the principle

of ending the war, and some of the urgency of the peace movement began to wane. Much of the religious character of 1968, when partypolitics of protest disappeared in the political

campaigns

came to the fore, and after that year in the more general charac-

the religious

element remained partly submerged

ter of the peace movement.

Also, the gradually declining presence of U. S. reduction in U.

troops in Vietnam and the resulting the pressures making for opposition

S.

casualties

decreased

to the war, the religious pressure included.

(;)

One notable instance of religious prote~t in 1968 was the Catonsville raid. Daniel and Philip Berrigan, along with fi ve others, removed draft recMaryland, and burned

ords from a Selective Service office in Catonsville, them publicly.

After this incident, believed Dan, the Catholics were leading

the radical fringe of the peace movement.74 In the fall, the American Catholic Bishops Conference insisted on the

Page 39

importance specific into

of dissent after

and called this; it

for

allowing that

conscientious

objection

to

wars;

was oertain

Vietnam would not be made Conservative the bishops the

a "holy war" strongly

backed by American religion. alike, and that had considered barrier

churchmen, Protestant last barrier

and Catholic tide,

to the antiwar

was being neutralized.75

In 1969, the U. S. troop as President Nixon continued

presence the policy

in 30uth Vietnam began to de-escalate, begun by the Johnson Administration turning more and more responsiTroop levels fell

to "Vietnamize" bi1ity

the war, by progressively

for the fighting

over to the South Vietnamese.

from 536,100 at the end of 1968 to 475,200 at the end of 1969, to 334,600 at the end of 1970, to 156,800 at the end of 1971, to 24,200 at the end of 1972. Peace talks by revelations My Lai massacre. went badly in 1969, and Congress and the nation and allegations of U. were shocked the

s.

misconduct in Vietnam, especially

The year 1970 brought the U. S.-South

Vietnamese invasion

of Cambodia, and the biegest invasion

event in the war in 1971 was the South Vietnamese support. in American part in

of Laos with American air

By 1969, "Support for the Vietnam war is not respectable re1igion."76 struggling Most clergymen and laymen took very little against the war, however. at . ~ active

Clergy .and Laymen Concerned had 33,000 )i.1.th their organization, out of a amount-

clergymen who had been connected total

of 400,000 in the U. S. Cler~~;:~~J'ship nwn~J.?~,j:~~~l'\en.

in peace organizations

ed to about 10% of the tot.al lievedthat also actively tion about 5% of the opposing this that it

Richard John Neuhaus bethe war, and 5%were of clerical oppos1-

'.:~~" i'</~:~.L:~,:~. , ~.~~.' ;~:'.~#. tot . a.('..i;''lJ.::::.: .. ... ...:;~~~l' : protesting

" .!.~~~~'!~.~:.~. ~,~~~~, /:~-.:,':,::: .

prot~t:t.,~i~:, had nejl

' ,/,. ;'.i:,able character " ~:.;; ..

:~~~'!t),; 'i' ':'~.'~j,:":~\~:;.~~;;t .. ;.: ~

to the war is

'~!~. .

:");;~::,:,.~::,St.~~.

" us not simply on Vietnam, but general.

on American policy

toward Third

Page In 1970, the peace movement was losing momentum. tion plicywas his political Jewish leaders Jews continued effective

40

Nixon's Vietnandz'a-

bringing American troops home, and Mr. Nixon was also using skills to disarm theropposition. For example, he suggested to if American

that U. S. support to Israel could be jeapordized to oppose his Vietnam policy.

This tactic was remarkably However, at least

in silencing many Jewish leaders and laymen. Jewish organizations - the Americian

two national

Jewish Congress and the

Union of American

Hebrew Congregations

- refused to succumb to this pressure

tactic of the President.78 In 1971, the peace movement was waning badly. tinctly religious protests was "A Call to Penitence One of the few disand Action,
If

a strongly

w9rded document published by the editors of the Chri~tian CentuEY, Christianity and Crisis, Commonweal, in part: and the National Catholic Reporter. It said

" many of earth's millions raise the cry out of their perception by our government, our economy and our armed forces. Espec-

of oppression

ially in southeast Asia, American military might is repeating the crucifixtion of Christ." icies and American ism - religion This showed a broadened militarism, attack on the U. S. Third World poleconomic imperial-

but it also attacked Americ~

in the United States was affected by Vietnam deeply, indeed. also listed a string of "accusations" deliberate ignoral of suffering; against American pol-

The statement iCies, including:

deception of the U. S. pub-

lic; "vain chauvinism" a cruel dictatorship of refugees;

in Johnson and Nixon; extensive bombing; support of in South Vietnam; excessive civilian deaths; creation

Vietnamization;

ignoring world opinion; diverting needed funds and the nature of the American "military

to the purpose of destruction; machine." Although

opposition was slacking, it was now very bitter, and its

Page

41

list of sins was very long.

PHILOSOPHIC~L,

PSYCHOLOGICAL,

AND HISTORICAL

ASPECTS

Eric Fromm, in a strictly Freudian relationship

analysis in 1930, explained the An individual usually sees He believes in

of religion to government power.

in the rulers the strong and powerful persons in society. their good will to him, resistance

to their authority is punished, and so Since this is how he once the informa-

he reveres them and tries to win their praise.

felt about his father, he inclines to accept unquestioningly

tion given to him by the rulers, just as he once did for his father. The figure of God forms a supplement to this situation; God is always the ally of the rulers. \fuen the latter, who are always real personalities, are exposed to criticism, they can rely on God, who, by virtue of his unreality, only scorns criticism and by his authority, confirms the authority of the ruling class.79 Past experience seems to confirm this view. Most Christian churches

had, in previous wars in history, supported their governments and gave moral sanctions Protestant were to their wars. There had been some notable exceptions, such as

martyrs in Hitler German and French Roman Catholic priests who rather than support their country's war in Algeria. and Jewish tradition Never-

imprisoned

the less, both Christian port for "holy wars."

claimed a long record of sup-

In fact, one author has recently claimed that: view people Christ's when

The source of white imperialism lies in the Christocentric of history. Christians see themselves as God's sole elect who have been commissioned to conquer all other nations in name. other nations appear on the hitorical horizon only Christians are about to conquer them. 0

When World War II began in the United States, the churches reluctantly supported America's entrance into that war. But they lost much public credbombing in German and the nu-

it for not speaking out against obliteration clear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A sense of guilt and responsibility

Page 42'

after this neglect, combined with an apprehension

of the tremendous

destruc-

tion of modern warfare, produced a strong antiwar reaction among American clergymen. 81 But what were the reasons that in the Vietnam war "the covenant of faith" was so bitterly in conflict with "the convenant of nation"? Why in ~

war were the American churches

"prepared to declare our solidarity with in American history?

the peoples we have wronged," to an extent unprecedented Why in this war were many churchmen lenium of militarism

ready "to face the real bane of a milThese reasons will now

on the life of the church"?82

be explored in more depth. In war, each side tends to see itself as the embodiment of good, and its opponent as the embodiment of evil. When atrocities are committed, they

are thought of as atrocities sary or inevitable enemy provide

only when committed

by the enemy, and as necesAnd then the actions of the

when done by one's own side.

a justification

for equally harsh or harsher counter-measures. as

8

"In this way we preserve our own self-image ple.IIB)

humane, compassionate

peo-

Every group has a sort of ideology by which it e:xplains the meaning of existence. Adhering to this ideology protects an individual from the realand transitory event in a vast It was vs.

ization that his life is a vary insignificant cosmos.

Both sides in the Vietnam conflict had a fervent ideology. vs. Communism

Americanism

from one side's point of view, and nationalism

neocolonialism an ideological

from the other. holy war.83a

Thus, the Vietnam war'took on the nature of is especially bitter, bedeath, the fear

This type of conflict

cause the defeat of one's ideology would be a psychological of which may be even greater than that of actual death. The great questions which arise from these conditions

are - Why was Amer-

Page 43 ican religion not enlisted in the ideological tent? One very L~portant val group. (eventually) answer to this comes from the concept of the surviholy war to a far greater ex-

In previous ages the survival group was the tribe, the clan, or the nation-state. "The survival unit," however, "suddenly

is no longer the nation but has become the human race itself, and for this we have no precedent, no previous experience, and no education for dealing in the face of modthe world,

with any such situation.,,84 ern global problems,

The" churches had apparently,

evolved a more sophisticated ~

awareness ~

not simply the nation-state, countrymen.

the survival unit than had most of their

This enabled them more easily to transcend national boundaries in favor of a globally conscious "convenant of faith." Their They val-

and ideologies

loyalty was to the human race before it was to the national government. were able to overcome traditional ues because loyalties which had become conscience

they felt that "our sur-vival, now depends on our concern for evof what group they may have happened to have

erybody, quite independently been born in. ,,85 Conscience acquired markable.

values are independent

of evidence, based on strong feelings by the churches is somewhat re-

in childhood,

so this independence

It appears that something in our modern world was exerting very for a supranational outlook on life. Moreover, antiwar

strong pressures activities importance

on the part of the nation's noted moral leaders were of great in Changing somewhat the deeply ingrained, nationalistic conscience

values of many others in the country.85a But the religious opposition to the war was not wholly divorced from

Page long standing religious tradition. Christian

44

tradition had produced three

major streams of thought about war:

the crusade, pacifism, and the doctrine h31 beoome obPac-

of thQ Ju~t wa~.

The cruoQdifii ap1r1t'8 glor1f1a t10n of W~

potential

solete because of the incredible destructive ifism waS still playing a mostly insignificant done much to discredit that optio~.86 expounded,

of modern war.

role, but World War II had

The doctrine of the just war had been and Thomas Aquinas, and it to the war on the

as explained above, by St. Augustine

was through this tradition part of Roman Catholics,

that much of the opposition

Protestants,

and Jews was channeled. dissenters as early as

The IIjust war" doctrine was invoked by religious 1965; the way to the application papal encyclical,

of this principle was paved in part by the

Pacem in TerriS, which held that "Ln this age of ours to believe that And the trend con- .

which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational war is still an apt means of vindicating tinued to develop. In its first public meeting in November, Vietnam declared violated rights."

1965, the Clergy Concerned About

in a resolution that, by their religious standards, Vietnam And individual spokesmen among religious

did not qualify as a just war. leaders were beginning

to say the same; earlier in the year, Pope Paul hi~ fearing that "more grave

self had issued a peace appeal to the government,

and tragic deveJ.f>RlJlents 1J1ihgfnt. about" in Vietnan if the fighting did not come stop. The theory of the just war, articulated over many years has se ~ral (1) basic principles. That is, it must be by St. Augustine and evolved

The war must be waged to correct injustice. against outside aggression

. fought in self-defense

or a repressive force

Page 45 wi thin one' 9 own country. (2) Violence must be used only as a last resort. () The means must be compatable with the ends. This means that imgoals;

moral means must not be used, even to achieve just and legitimate that noncombatants prisoners

should not be 'a~tacked directly - the innocent as well as to the greatest possible ex-

and the wounded should be protected

tent; and that the gains achieved by the war must exceed the costs of the war itself.

(4) The war must be waged by legitimate, or duly constituted}authority.

These principles, conflict especially the third and fourth, when applied to the leaders (and students as Of course, there nor was there

in Vietnam, appeared to many religious

well) to condemn much of American conduct in Indochina. was no unanimity

even in the peace movement on all questions, sector. The following

unanimity .among the religious

sketch of specific mat-

ters about the Vietnam war is merely a brief attempt to outline the issues which gave rise to religious and moral opposition war~ First, the goals of the American military the Saigon regime were called into question. joined Philip Berrigan in his protestation intervention and support for to Vietnam as an "unjust"

Many clergymen would have

that North Vietnam was "a nation and against whom we have not began, other questions And

against whom we have no cause for grievance, declared war."87 arose: When massive American

intervention

Is this becoming a white man's bat1fle in the midst of Asians?

if so, could it be that much of the population

of South Vietnam did not supSuch suspicions army (ARVN) in bat-

port the goals for which the United States was fighting? were fed by the poor performance tle. Many Americans of the South Vietnamese

became concerned

that their country was trying to achieve

Page

46

something

that the South Vietnamese

themaelves

did not want, and bhus was

fighting for unattainable rest of the world.

ends and damaging itself in the eyes of the attempted to ju~tify its to protect the South from outaid from Moscow and

The Johnson Administration

actions in the Vietnam conflict as necessary side aggression Peking.

from the North, which ~as receiving

Nevertheless,

there arose a belief in the United States that perhaps regime on an

America was the agressor, attempting to impose an unpopular unwilling people.

This belief was furthered by the fact that the fighters; government (GVN) were indigenous to Vietnam,

against the South Vietnamese

while the GVN was getting massive aid in soldiers and equipment from a distant foreign power. the American There was, moreover, a feeling that the purposes of

war in Vietnam was to preserve the power of the U.S. at the Martin

expense of the Third World in general, and Vietnam in particular. Luther King, for example, forcefully American troops: expressed

this feeling in speaking ot

We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must realize that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side the wealthy and the secure while we create a hell for the poor.

The question

of whether violence was utilized

only as a last resort was among religious

not a major issue in the war.

There was deep dissatisfaction

leaders over the fact that the 1956 South Vietnamese the 1954 Geneva Conventions democratic

election called for in

had not been held, and over the apparently unMuch criticism was directed at in escalating the

nature of the Saigon government.

the United States government because of its responsibility scale of violence, but there was little discussion sort. The debate focused more on the legitimacy

on violence as a last re-

of American ends and the lev-

Page 47

elof

destruction

generally.

On the third criterion of the just war, the anger and outrage of religI

ious leaders was vented most heavily. tally incompatible with the professed

The means were widely seen to be togoals of the United States. The naThe

ture of many of the weapons employed by the allies was widely condemned. napalm attacks, the use of defoliants, ly destructive fragmentation

grenades, and other highnature. The

weapons were assailed for their indiscriminate

fact that the war involved the mass killing and maiming of noncombatants and the creation of, eventually, over

million refugees, left many Americans

aghast at the nature of the war. seemed to inevitably discontent. of refugees

And the fact that many American practices added fuel to their

produce massive civilian casualties

There was the "pacification"

program which created huge numbers

and destroyed many villages; the IIsearch and destroy" operations and the "sanitized beltsn and fortified.

which killed many suspected or known NLF supporters; which were areas of land that were evacuated,

bulldozed,

And, most of all, there was the bombing policy, which struck farms and v1llages, belligerants As Nation magazine and noncombatants, put it in 1965: women and children as well as men. increasingly reached

"The conclusion

is that this war cannot be 'jus~' essentially a war in the midst of a civilian population

because it is immoral to fight

that has never clearly expressed The bombing policy was one of with government policies.

itself one way or another on the issues.1I89

the greatest causes of U. S. religious disaffection Thus, the question than the benefits Vietnamese of proportionality or success? arose:

Are the costs of the war greater loss of human life there were many other The land

Besides the tremendous

and American

- and the widespread

suffering,

costs which became more and more unacceptable

as the war dragged on.

of Vietnam was being scarred and poisoned by bombs and defoliants, crops

Page were being destroyed, apart.

48

and the social fabric of South Vietnam was being torn

Other aspects of the war disturbed many, such as the dehumanization in the minds of American citiand

of the enemy as well as Vietnamese civilians zens. Increasing polarization

at home became more and more intolerable,

many felt needed social reforms were being ignored and deferred because of the drain on the nation's moral and material resources caused by the war. It was as if the Vietnam \Jar was infecting the entire body politic, and exac~rbating all the problems at home. The costs were exceeding the gains for

many people. A fourth criterion authority. of the just war is that it be waged by a legitimate of the GVN was called

We have already seen how the legitimacy by many.

into question have extremely American religious

But there is another aspect to this, one which could significance - the legitimacy of the

important long-range

governmen began to be questioned

by many of the most influential

leaders in the land. (This does not imply, however, that the clergy in the United States; it simply means that basic and society were increasingly being raised.)

were" calling for revolution questions

about American government

Rabbi David Weiss of Boston, for example, considered of our national purpose," and Presbyterian Theologian

the war "a corruption Robert McAfee Brown

charged the U. S. government with furthering All moral considerations "military fications victory.,,89

a doctrine of "anything goes. or suspended for the sake of

are either Bubsidiary

The secrecy and deception which surrounded the justiwas

of the war given by both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations

one of the factors which caused much cYnicism vists. Many were also disgusted, as mentioned

among religious antiwar actibefore, by the willingness in order to continue

of the government the war.

to allow social goals to be neglected of dissenters,

The persecution

the draft, the apparent militariza-

,..;

.
I

,i
.,. c'
r

,
I;;

'
~ .

: c' , \':....
\

.~ .
:1..,

:tlon of the national ,:~scientious

,

conscience,

and
.;.~::::
"

,',

_....

.............-:-

:-.)
.J

obj ect.Lonial.L increased The injustices in spurring

/

the widespread

.'

disillusion

with the gov-. -.,.,'

.,;

"", ..... "'1 '

errunent. ,influehti~
. .

and coercive on r~ligious

nature opinion

~f the draft i~to

l

were particularly to the war and faced with,

,i
"

..
"

"

~ ,i
\

'

opposition

':~

related

domestic government policies, of counseling because 'of their question antiwar

because cl~gymen were often

",'/' '\: the ~espon~ibility

~"

yourg men who were "exPerie~iflg feelings against

tr~m~end?us
' f'

"
\

:'"m.oralconflicts
, ,

.
"

the Vietnam it/ar.

Another

......

: ..

. .....': :
,'1

" ~sP~;to~ the

,

of legitimacy

of the American government in the eyes concern many such activist in Vietnam. This fact feel pro-

\.,'

, ,i,
"

,. ,. ,
~
'.
o

of
\
",

religious,

acti vist was the great to U.,S.

-, . ~ .

over the worldwide opposition

:

policies

vides

aqother

suggestion

that

many religious

leaders

had developed a quite community often loyalties. and what bearing

,
-

" . !.

stroi'rg loyalty

to the Lnt.er'natLona.Lcommunity, and this a more powerful influeme

..

"

, .>,

"seemed t.o exert

than did national

What, though, was the importance of the moral issue,

',,',"

.
"

.~

\.'

some loss

of support because of that?

The answer is,

apparently

not.

Carl T

~:
,1" '

Rowan warned in 1967 that the United States retain essential has tied public

"the administration itself

cannot ignore the charge that it wants to were

to an immoral cause - not if The moral criticisms "a search for principles

support."91

the clergy

, "'directing
:'

toward the war involved including ourselves, at least,

which apply to 'The religious for the

"

everyone,

in a specifie in co-opting

situation."n

,""cj.issenters

succeeded,

the language of morality

, -oppos i.t.Lo to the war. n

Therefore,

the explanations were pragmatic,

of the war given by the largely side-stepping the

':Johnsori and Nixon Administrations

"

','~! ,

~~ral

issue.93

So, the Vietnam war was not cloaked with moral authority, thinkers were criticizing

.
': ". and many of the nation 's most prominent religious
"

.
,'~'

'\

:-

'.~

~;
't

..

~f ~A
t,

~,s
:"

, i/';<'.;(. .';;,:{';:,' :/.:\ A . '.,. ~"\ ;,.'/': ':-,} ' .. r/ ";~.:,:,>;,<' ' :.,.
't' ,.'

1:.\

'

.r

,I'

,'_'

.t/'.

/~

iJJ:i.

't~,: ~ ; r
i

f-

)It; _

J'

>:\:.
( "

-f.

hit'
(" \", , '

Page
I '. ~

50
"-,

\,t . ~.

If'

,'"

. -

',{
r: ,

",
s,

~', -,
in some aspects. This development

.:

.';':.

'

~:t.hei~ ovn government

, .'.

. \,: '. l',,::?/ ..~ i.,~:",

.. , .~I I

~,<" "'\: .: ,'"

.as imm.oral,"'a~.Least,

,I. ~\,

/'

.:." ,.,

,;'':;'."j::'," ",( ,::( ,

. ':.:'.' ;:", ,r::.,. ': ,.:;\
r~~

. . :':';~:(;t:.i ':<'~',W:(),ul:t' 8,'Rgear',.;,t~, etiJ't)U~g~ a 1t~e~teJ:~degree of. skepticism in the people, 'of th~ "1' :~ ~. .-' . :f' '~.~. " ~".t: , ": ,'" r.",;:" ,~Untry a.bout the act.Lena 'of :their government. It could al.so lead to a. more

., '.
,.'.

ver~al ',ppli.<2ation
-. .'. '.~ ..

ot

:"',"."
..
~ II

'.,

moral'.:,ftandardS, an, appl.acatd.on

'. ,'f

focusing

on the world.

"
...... ~,.
-,

f "'.,

:.'.,#~::.:;."

~:.. :!:', instead, 6f the rtation .

as the s\iTvi val, group.

; '.

. ,.:~'I.~;',

:'~~!"'~., ... ~i:rl: .. ... ' 'i'rJ~: ~JI" pton6unce, judgment on the governmenb+s actions
I ," ,," ',0

t!~ ,'.:'.'-'It .sb~uld y,

~~

.;1

'-

,;.

.'

" .

be mentioned,

h4w:e'Ver,' h~t', not- all t

clergymen were willing Someheld,to over the

to the -';~,

in Vietnam'.

~i' ,"~ ~;::~:'\.;'::"

" \:~'-<, ~. :
:,t, " ;" '. " <,~' /

.t:.. _;.'
osition

"
".

'.
that

It')

"'
.

.. '

t.he. clergy

should"'stay'out

of the political

battle

~,.:fi '. ""'.;{..:

War- because they lacked the technical

'~owledge possessed by the policy-makers

<j:,!j'i:j:~d"';vis~rs
'. ,:,!.:: .,'. "
.'1.
, ~/:,..

in the government , \h~~(;~,\,pposed this view often countered to

" i

'..

hat

the church was indeed competant to raise a responsibility, a duby,

pertinent

moral issues,

and it

,.
>

~', ~,;,
J

',;.4

..
-. .

was in fact

"

j'

Another important within

constraint

"f the '~tiwar

activities

of the clergy

was

,*
.1-' ..1ot.I

~.',:~~f tension
,1

the churches,

between \he

ci!;lrgy'and the laity, is often "a personal

over religious matter having life.,,94

,f,'.,
.t "',

socd.a.Laction. no relation

For lay persons, "religion

' ... ,-

p. "~"..

to the unsolved problems of nation~ actions are often a fear that

and international

"

.
"

The political sympathetic

taken iI.l a re:f.lgious spiri~,with related to lesser concerns

which lay people are

such A~ ~moking or gambling. controversial matters

There was also

,;
.' >
,

of involving
/

religion is

in highly

,,'

...

and a feeling over religious congregations,

political

activity in secular

"dirty"

or "tainted."

The dispute splits in many involved on them;

! .,

involve~ent

affairs

caused serious that

with the laity

often believing

the moral issues ve action

,',

were not, clear-cut

enough for the churches

to take collecti

some 'also saw the church moving awaY,from its

"\

primary purpose, also,

the teaching spir-

"

",

and preaching
,.:
,

of the gospel of Christ. to God as primary,

Judaism, with social

places. a special

.~
:t
\

itual
'

relationship

concerns taking

a secon-

"

',or' " . ~ .

I. '
'!

Page dary place.

51

Many clergy, both "hawk" and "doves", joined in the argument leaders were overstepping of Vietnam. their boundaries in discussing the

that religious moral question

"I am prepared,"

said Rabbi Henry Siegman, "to speak with no less The

accept the contention moral authority

that Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara religious

than the heads of America's

establishment.,,95

acti vis t~;. answered

that the church should attempt not only to save indi vidFor instanc.e, Harvey Cox of Harvard's

ual.s , but to redeem society as well.

divinity

school said in The Secular City, "Speaking of God in a secular where God is working and then joining His By doing it, a Chris-

fashion entails our discerning work. Standing

in a picket line is a way of speaking.

tian speaks of God. ,,96 This brings up the important question of how the separation of church and state operates in modern secular society. As we have seen, many opposed

action by the churches which would involve them closely in affairs of the state. How much should the church involve itself in matters of governmental if it wishes to remain free from government control? question of liberty and responsibility, This

policy, especially

is, of course, a continuing which must be validated government

of freedoms

anew by each generation.

In the early sixties, the in the area of civil rights,.

found itself in alliance with religion

and the church played a hie;hly important civil rights movement.

- probably decisive - role in the however, the churches

In the Vietnam controversy,

were often placed in opposition to government was much more qualified an interest than before.

policy, and their success here

With the clergy and laity acting as and reinforce antiwar sentipersuading the

group, they were able to encourage Congressmen,

ments among sympathetic

but often had difficulty

"hawks" to alter their stances.

Religious

activism undoubtedly

was a power-

'L 'ta:rj:',reverses
'v .... "

"

.such as the Tet offensive against the war.

were far A further criton

.,'

"
.

more infl:u.enti~.
"

turil'iJ?,g Aln.erican opinion

\

.consideration
. .\"

is that
. 'I

policy .makere ' resentment

,

of vigorous religious

:i.c~smprobab Iy mad~,. t~
"

g~'vernment,inu.ch less Along'.this line,

willing it is

to look approvingly also important that

"','

furl~'e'r' ler~cai c
"
'

'~"~i ~'.' m,

many

'. - ": religious'

.'')

'1\",' ..
. \'~.' i, :: .

\,.'

..

"

".

. ',.;

per-sons were willing . .

.'

to defy secular

authority

on the war, some-

;times~~bthe

ext ent, of. breaking

'" .

.
r

'.

'

law~, by adhering
,.

to what they considered independence

:. n,.. ,'t(f beva

..I..

<\. .,

"J .:

:.

.'

,~

'.

r / "'"':: ~":
; .'.'

I".'

','

. ,>
'"

:,:. ~

pow:er. This shows that there is considerable . AIileric'an'religion from the secular government. which also should be addressed hierarchy, is that

higher

~(>j.

~ ', ~'

",
:. ;. '.

:.:,;' _. '. A question

~~ I, '

of why some religious to oppose the war, for

;.fl . ,'~{;';"

.~).i,

..
.v:

groups , such as the Catholic

were reluctant

. :\:,;>,:':
.1

'. ' "J",:"

/(;>~;.'.:

.~.~hen

IDcmy:' other religious

groups were willing

to do so and when support in the U. S.

the wa;' was generally ists, for instance,

not respectable generally

in religion the war.

Fundamental.c~~ of

supported

The reasons for this

r'adily

be suggested. is

The fundamentalist either 1?ot~y

has a very Manichaen style evil;

, ... _.~'.tho"ll:ght:- everything ~ .

.. ;i
I' '.

good or totally

one must have for

'either

complete faith

or absolute

disbelief.

This produces a desire

clear-cut

answers to all

moral questions.

~Vhen such answers are not forth- Commurri.sm which proan absolutely have made in Indothe is sub-

: coming, many fundamentalists

have found a conspiracy

'..

vides .'a simple answer for the nation's evil enemy to oppose.

problems and provide

This extreme anti-Conununism would naturally to support great the American intervention particularly authority

them more willing china. authority 'versive

than others

Fundamentalism puts of infallible - or, rather,

emphasis on authority, liTo doubt the ultimate This authoritarian

scripture. sinful.,,97 to

frame of mini would in the context of

also tend to look on opposition ,VIetnam as un-patriotic

governmental authority There is also

and sinful.

an element of anti-inteldiscussion

, lectualism in the fundamentalist mind which would tend to lessen

~:

..

Page 53 of subtle and complex moral, social, and political Fundamentalism issues.

is a most important force in .fumericanrelieion, so the took to the war is certainly important. While

approach that fundamentalists

only about 5 per cent of the American clergy was actually in active suppor-t 'of the war, others supported it impliCitly, way fundamentalist at least. A good example of the

cLer-gymen approached the war is that of the Rev. Dr. Billy evangelist. In the early years of the

Graham, the popular fundamentalist

war, Graham did not take a position for or against the Vietnam war, but he did address himself to related issues. apparent criticism In a sermon in 1965 he offered an in Washington the previous day:

of antiwar demonstrators

"EVen a little handful can make a great noise and get national attention if they are protesting and demonstrating.n97a Before leaving for a tour of

'Vietnam the following year, he said that the purpose of his visit would be to preach the Gospel to the soldiers and that he would not comment on either the war or its conduct. Graham drew fire from more active cLer gymen be-

cause he had taken no position on the war and because he criticized clergymen who had done so. position By 1968, he seemed to begin sho~1mg something of a

of support for the war when he returned from a Christmas visit to

Vietnam and said that he planned to report his "cautious optimism" on the war to President-elect Nixon. Calley's conviction in 1971 for t he mur-

In an article about Lieutenant der of Vietnamese distinguishes

civilians, Graham did express his belief that "the Bible In that article he called for

between just and unjust wars."

"mercy" for Lieutenant

Calley and suggested that "the rules of war under He also

which Calley was convicted were too narrow and too rigid in scope." expressed his concern over the destruction

of innocent persons in war:

I have never heard of a war where innocent people were not killed.

Page 54 Tens of thousands of innocent people were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have been to Vietnam several times and I have heard some of the most horrible stories from missionaries and the Vietnamese people about sadistic murders by the Vietcong of innocent v.illages. I talked to men who will never walk again, who were suffering from boobytrap or grenade wounds, planted or thrown by women and children working for the Vietcong.97b The reasons for large-scale opposition, among many Catholics centuries-old Catholic support on the war, or at least lack of have somewhat more complex origins. The

tradition has been that the state received Us author-

ity from God, and it has thus strongly stressed obedience to governmental authorities. "Catholics have often tended to regard the comm.a:ndsof the sometimes even as sacred." 98 The Catholic Church

state as unchallengeable, functioned

in its early years in this country inunigrant wcrkers into American

as an important institution society, by providing a link

for integrating

to their feudal tradition which was adapted the form of capitalism United States at that time. tarian feudal tradition, It thus retained

in the

strong ties with its authoriBecause

and became largely a religion of immigrants.

it was an.inunigrant religion, Catholics nativists

were often criticized by American

as somehow un-ltmerican, and their response was often a fervent show to demonstrate their loyalty to the country. The absolutist ideologr, in

of patriotism

moral tendencies and~

in the church, its desire to perpetuate tradition has also made it fervently

capitalist

authoritarian

anti-Communist degree).

the past (this feeling is now cooling off to a significant fore, many CatholiCS, particularly

There-

the working class, would have accepted

the Vietnam war with little or no moral consideration. Many other influences noted. of the peace movement on religion have also been

Perhaps one of the longest-range

of these is the increased split of Richard

clergy and laity of the war and over social activism in general.

Page

55

John Neuhaus

also noted that the experience

of the peace movement in the

1960s showed a trend among the clergy to form alliances along issue-oriented rather than denominational revolutionary political,
ca.L Gospel"

lines, and strengthened religion.

both radical pacifism and

thougbt

in American

He also expected that the moral,

and social issues would g1 ve "a more honest hearing to the bibithan it had before. 99 A strengthening of Jewish-Christian ties

also resulted

from common action in the peace movement, but by 1973, conof Israel and Zionism had largely erased the pro-

flicts over the questions gressmade

in that area, at least in the American Left. should be included to clarify why the Jewish op-

A word of explanation

position to the war has not been examined in this paper in as much detail as Catholic and Protestant opposition has been. Many influential Jewish leaders

were active in the antiwar movement, ment of it. President

and they were indeed an important ele-

Jewish activism on Vietnam fell off, however, in 1970 when Jewish antiwar actions might reason for the apparent lack of is the relatively small number

Nixon suggested that continued 78

threaten U. S. support of Israel.

Another

data on this segment of the antiwar movement of Jewish persons tians; therefore, Jewish leaders, peace movement, as much national rigans. Another

in the United States as compared

to the number of ChrisSome

Jewish activity and influence would lie less visible. such as Rabbi Abraham Heschel,

were very important to the

but there were apparently attention

no Jewish leaders who commanded

as, for example, Hartin Luther King or the Beris that much of their groups through interEven though

reason for Jewish lack of visibility

antiwar activism was in cooperation

with other religious

faith j?;t"Cllps such as the Clergy and Laity Concerned the Jewish influence

About Vietnam.

in the antiwar movement was apparently very important.

relatively

small , it was nevertheless

Page

56 - ~'. . .- ..

Another

aspect of religious opposition

to the Vietnam war is the apparent made by re-

lack of moral response by the Johnson and Nixon Administrations li6ious persons. sponse.

There were two main reasons or the apparent lack of re-

First, the government did not want, the the war's early years, to

place a high moral emphasis on Vietnam, because a failure of policy would thereby appear a disaster and hurt the Administration politically. Another

reason for the lack of moral argument by the Administration peace movement

is that the

had used the language of morality frequently in their crit-

iCisms, and the government believed that to adopt such language would be to lose much of the forc~ of their justifications The language to the antiwar movement.

of morality had been co-opted by the peace movement, and so both defended their actions on the war in

the Johnson and Nixon Administrations terms of pragmatic necessity.

The role of communications

in the Vietnam War and domestic reactions goes

far towards explaining why this war and not earlier ones had produced such a heated reaction. with on-the-scene sonal matter. Television brought the war to millions of homes nightly and this made the war an intensely per-

battle cove~age,

In many homes, families engaged in angry disputes over the war, This also increased the willingness of young but

which was a regular TV feature. men to resist the draft.

All these pressures were at work on the clergy, draft resisters

they were also confronted with problems such as counseling and dealing with congregations vanced communications most morally clergy.

divided over Vietnam and social activism.

Ad-

thus brought forth antiwar reactions, especially from the

sensitive, and these antiwar pressures were compounded for the

roorsorsa

I.

IITSTOliICAL

SUMMARY OF TIm , JUST WAR

1.
2.

Jeff Greenfield, "The Selective C. 0." July, 1967, pp. 15.

A

New Republic,

John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1967).
"

II.

THE CHURCHBS AND VIETNAM A. The Churches and the Cold War before 1965. 1. Richard Barnet, Roots of War, (Atheneum, New York,

1972), pp. 323-4. 2. Ibid., p. 325

3.
Dr. Brock Chisholm, in Psychological Aspects of International Relations, Hoaring's Senate Foreign Relations Committee, May 25, 1966, p , 61. Francine du Plessix Gray, "Acts of Witness." Yorker, Harch 14, 1970, p. 88. "Love, Hatred, and Politics," New

4.

5.

Christian Century, Nov. ~O,

1963,

p.

1423.
sit., p. 326.

6. Barnet,~.
7.
Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 327. 10.

"Peace and Reconstruction", Nation, Dec. 27, 1965, p , 513.

11. Cited in Barnet, ~. 12. E. Raymond Wilson,

Christian Century,

cit., p. 326. "Are We Serious About Social Action?" Feb. 10, 1965, p. 169. Christian Century, p. 628.

13. "Thinking the Unthinkable," 14. Ibid.

15. New York Times, Oct. 29, 1964, p. 19.

/'

'

16. "The Churches t Mandate," 1964, p. 1419

Christian

Century, Nov. 18

,, .'

17. Leroy Davis, "The Clergy-Laity Nov. 18, 1964, p. 1455

'

Schism"

Christian Centurz,

,',

as,

(:;Jp IlIOU"t1 NWflil'tl1fHi1fiS) "Chr113t1;m Mot1VAt.,j.On or PO 1.t.1cAl. f Concerns," Vital Speeches, Apr. 1, 1965, p. 368(1).

19. New York Times, ..E.cit. 20. Davis,..E. cit. 21. Christian Centu~, 22. Davis,..E. cit. 23. "Rome and Saigon," 24. Ibid.
B. THE 1-JAR YEARS

May 1, 1968, p. 576.

Christian

Century, Sept. 4, 1963, p. 1068

1. Norman Thomas, letter, Christian Century, Apr. 21, 1965, p. 495.

2. nUrge Cease-Fire
p,

in Vietnam",

Christian

Century, Jan. 1, 1965,

37.
New Yorker,

3. Francine du PIes six Gray, "Acts of Witness," Mar. 14, 1970, p. 80. 4. Ibid. , p. 44. 5. ~., 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. , p. 84.
p. 80.

8. "Peace Priests Huzzled", Christian Centurr, Dec. 8, 1965, p. 1500. 9. Ibid. , 10. Ibid. ,
p. p.

1501. 1500.

;J

11. Gray, ..E.cit. pp. 97-100. 12. Ibid., p , 84.

13. 14. 15.

Father York,

Daniel

Berrigan,

No Bars

to Hanhood,

(Banton,

New

1970), p. 36

Gray,.E c it ItW1ly are '"'IeFighting in Vietnam?" Christian Century, Feb.

24,

J.96$, p. 23l

16 . "The Churches Speak on Vietnam," 1965, pp. 325-6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.
~. New York Times, New York Times, New York Times, New York Times, Ibid., p. 2. Nov. p. July

Christian

Century,

Mar.

17,

3, 1965, p , 6. 4, 1965, p. 11. 4, 1965, p. 19. 13, 1965, p , 1.

August August August

New York Times, Gray,.E. cit.,

10, 1965,

p,

30.

82. 7, 1965, p. 2. 3, 1965.

New York Times, New York Times, New York Times,

IIA

Nov.

November Dec.

23,1965.
Christian Century, Jan.

Visit

to the Nor-th Vietnamese,"

3,

1968, p. 18.
New York Times, New York Times, New York Times, New York Times, "Vigil "Call at the Nov. June June June

4, 1965, p , 5. 18, 1965, p. 32. 16, 1965, p. 29. 27, 1965, p. 9.

Newsweek, May Century, Policy,"

?entagon," Christian Foreign

24, 1965, p. 66. 12, 1965, p , 605. 30, 1965, p , 53. 7, 1965.

to Vigil," Out
0!l

May

"Speaking "Protestants Ibid. "Battle Gray,~.

Time, July

on Vietnam,"

;~ew York T.imes, Dee.

36. 37. 38.

of Conscience," cit., p.

Newsweek, No.

14, 1965, p. 78.

94.

---------_~~,~ ----,
39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. u,
Ibid. "Vietnam Debate," New York Times, Apr. S. Fears," New York Times, Feb.

9, 1965,

p,

9.

'1965, p. 10.
New York Times,

James Reston, "mere Did We Go Wrong?"! Nov. 21, 1965, p. EI0. "Battle of Conscience," Aug.

.E. ill.
21, 1965,
p.

New York rimes,

24.
Christian Century,

"Clergy Concerned About Vietnam," Jan. 26, 1966, p. 99. Ibid. Robert Holmes, "Moral Stance Christian Centu~, June 15, "I'he Bishops Ibid. James O'Gara, "The Cardinal July 22, 1966, p. 459. "Cardinal, Pope and War," and Vietnam",

1966,

and Political p. 776.

Action,"

Commonuea.L, April

15, 1966,

p,

93.

on Volar,"

Cormnonweal,

Corrnnonweal -----,

Jan

13 .,

1965 ,. 393 p
Centug,

Philip \vogaman, "A Moral Reassessment," Jan. 4, 1967, p. 7. Gray,~. "Left cit., Wing," p.

Christian

107.
Feb.

~JewYork Times, New York Times,

1, 1966,

p,

14. 8. 15, 1966,

p,

"Johnson," "Public

Har.

10, 1966,

p,

Backs Negotiations,"

New York Times, Mar. Johnson p. Time, and the Polls,"

1.

James Reston, "President New York Times, May 25, "Dimensions "Prickly "Militant Nov. 27, of Dissents,"

1966,

46.
Jan.

26, 1968,

p.

62.
p.

Sermon for

LBJ,"

Newsweek, Nov. Fire Back,"

27, 1967,

93.

1967,

Clergy - Critics pp. 66-68.

U. S. News,

"The Dilerrnna of Dissent," "King Speaks for pp , 492-493. Ibid. Peace,"

Time, Christian

Apr.

21, 1967,

p.

21. 19, 1967,

Century,

Apr.

64. 65.

"A Call to Suffering,"

~,

Sept. 22, 1967, p. 84. Newsl-leek,

"The Churches: 'What Should We Say?" July 10, 1967, p. 82. "Social Concern in the SBC," 1967; p. 80,$. "A Second Selma," "Riding the Tiger,"

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

Christian Century, June 21,

Christian Century, Mar. 8, 1967, pp , 301-2. Time, Oct. 27, 1967, p , 30. Newsweek, July 10, 1967, pp. 20-22. .912. cLt ,

"A New Sophistication," "The Churches:

'What Should We Say?"

Gray,.912. cit., p. 88. Prentiss Pemberton and Homer Page, "Translating Anti-war Protest into Political Power," Christian Century, Jan. 3, 1968, pp. 11-14. Richard John Neuhaus, "The War, the Churches, and Civil Religion," The Annals, Jan., 1970, p. 1)0. Gray,

73.

74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

E.

cit., p.

44,

48.

Neuhaus,~. Ibid.

cit., p. 132.

Ibid., p. 131. Bolfour Brickner, :TVietnam and the Jewish Community," Christian Century, pro 29, 1970, p. 531. PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS

III.

PHILOSOPHIC.~, 79. 80.

Erich Fromm, The DOgma of Christ (Fawcett, 1973, Greenwich, Conn.), 1930 essay, pp. 25-26. Rosemary Radford Reuther, summar~zlng the view of Vine Deloria, Jr., "God Talk," New Republic, Jan. 5, 1974,p. "The Churches: 'What Should We Say?'" ~. cit. hristian Century, 25.

81. 82.

Paul Peachey, "A Priority Program oilPeace:" Aug. 3, 1966, pp. 959-961. Dr. Jerome D. Frank, Relations, Hearings,

83.

83a. Ibid., p. 12 84. Dr. Brock-Chisholm, -PsyChological Aspects of International Relations, Ibid.,p. 12. Ibid., p. 59.

85.

85aOne
the politics

of the most perceptive

ways of viewing the role of religion in

of the United States is Robert Bellah's highly important conBellah has noted that religion and politics in this country; the Vietnam

cept of the civil religion. have had an exceptionally experience

smooth relationship

would seem to be in conflict with this belief, but actually Belthe question of why religious opposition was so much

lah's concept clarifies

greater in this war than in others. of religious beliefs,

He defines the civil religion as "a set

symbols, and rituals growing out of the American hisin the dimension of transcendence." This re-

torical experience

interpreted

system of religious-type

thoughts exists parallel to, and in "symbiotic

lationshipll to (to use Neuhaus' term) Christianity This relationship tian" nat i.on , government is shown in the widespread

and Judaism in the U. S.

belief that America is a "Chris-

The real moral conflict over the Vietnam war was between the

and civil religion, which was evolving to a radically altered One of the reasons that the laity was so disturbed is that they could not see the distinction about

world situation. clerical activism

between the

civil religion America secular,

and formal religion. Christian,

Since most of the laity believe that are either Christian or

is basically

then its policies

and the clergy should stay out of "secular politics."

The role of

the civil religion Neuhaus

and the churches in the antiwar movement was explained by

in this way:

The debate about the "morality" of the Vietnam war is no t , then, between the government and Christianity, but between the government and the civil religion of .~erica. The churches rally to the support of, and give a degree of legitimation to, that interpretation of the civil religion that protest the war.

86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

Wogaman,~. Gray, Ope cit.,

cit.,

p. 7. p. 88. Peace," ..E. cit., p , 493.

"King Speaks for "No Place

to Hide,"

Nation, ~.

Oct. 4, 1965, pp. 180. cit.

"Dimensions of Dissent,"

Quoted in wogaman, ..E. ci t.

92 ~ William Henry Harris, "Morali ty, Moralism, and Vietnam," Christian Century, Sept. 22, 1965, p. 1157. 93. 94. Neuhaus,..E. cit., p. 134. "Are We Serious About Social Feb. 10, 1965, p. 169. ..E. cit. 23, 1967, Action?"

E. Raymond ',vilson, Christian Century, "The Churches: "The Unrest pp. 70-71.

95. 96.

'What Should We Say?'"

in U. S. Churches."

U. S. News, Jan.

97.

jolm Opi.e, Jr., "The Modernity of Fundamentalism," Christian Century, May 12, 1965, p. 608.

97a. New York Times, Nov. 29, 1965, p. 28. 97b. Billy 98.
o

Graham, "On Calley," cit., p. 84.

New York Times, Apr. 9, 1971, p , 31.

Gray,~.

99.

Neuhaus, ..E. ~.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"A Call to Penitance and Action." pp. 4190420. "A Call to Suffering." Time.

Christian CentuEY, Apr. 7, 1971,

Sept. 22, 1967. pp. 84-85. Christian CentuEY' Jan 26, 1966.

"A Message to the Churches."

"A New Sophistication."
"A

Newsweek.

July 10, 1967. pp. 20-22. March 8, 1967. pp. 301-302. Jan. 3, 1968.

Second Selma."

Christian Century.

"A Visit to the North Vietnamese." pp. 18-21. "Accomplices of Cheerleader?"

Christian century.

Christian Century, Jan. 24, 1968. p. 99

"Activism is No Virtue." Aronowitz, Stanley. pp. 166-172.

Time. Nov. 10, 1967, p , 75. (New York: McGraw-Hill,

False Promises.

1973).

"Arranged by the Defense Dept." p. 1150. "As Others See Us." p. 1181-1182.

Christian Century.

Sept. 22, 1965.

Christian Century. Sept. 29, 1965. Time. Oct. 27, 1967. pp. 23-29.

liThe Banners of Dissent." "Battle of Conscience." "Berrigan." New Yorker.

Newsweek. Nov. 15, 1965. Apr. 2, 1966.

p. 78.

pp. 34-35. (New York: Bantam, 1970*

Berrigan, Daniel. No Bars to Manhood. pp , 11 and 36.- -"I'he Bishops

and Vietnam."

Commonweal.

Apr. 15, 1966, pp. 93-94.

Bomaijan, Haig A. "The Norunorality of Cruelty and Killing." Christian Century. Aug. 23, 1967. pp. 1065-1067. Brickner, Balfour. "Vietnam and the Jewish Community." Apr. 29, 1970. pp , 531-534. Christian Century.

BIBLIOG~PHY (cont.)

Brown, Robert October.

M.

14, 1970.

"An Open Letter to Spiro pp. 1213-1217. "The Church and Vietnam."

Agnew."

Christian

Century.

Brown, Robert M. pp. 52-55.

Commonweal.

Sept.

13, 1967.

Burkholder, "J. Lawrence. "The Peace Churches Discernment." Christian Century. Sept. "Call to Vigil on Vietnam." Christian Century.

as Communities of

4, 1963.
May

pp ,

1072-1075.

12, 1965.
Commonweal.

p. 605.
Cameron, J. M. "Cardinal Spellman, Jan. 20, 1967. pp. 417-418 "Cardf.na'l , Pope, "Christian Apr. "Christians and War." for Charles Davis."

Commonweal. Political

Jan.

13, 1967. pp. 391-392.

Vital Speeches.

Moratorium

Concern."

1, 1965. pp. 368-372.

and War." Commonweal. Christian Dec.

27, 1968.
Apr.

pp.

423-424.
p,

"Chur-ch and Society." "Church Counsel." "Churches'

Century. Dec.

20, 1966.

485.

New York Times.

4, 1965. p. 1.
Time. Nov. Apr.

Lnf'Luerc e on Secular

Society." Cent~/.

21, 1967.
p.

"The Churches'

Mandate."

Christian

18, 1964.
Mar.

1419-

1420.
"The Churches Speak on Vietnam." Christian Century.

17, 1965.

pp. 325-326.
"The Churches: 'What Should We Say?'" Newsweek. July

10, 1967.
Jan.

pp. 81-82.
"Clergy
pp ,

Concerned About Vietnam."

Christian

Century.

26, 1966.

99-100.
in Politics." New Republic. Feb.

"Clergy

17, 1968.
Saturday

p,

11.

Cousing, Norman. "Is Dissent Mar. 2, 1968. p. 18.

Necessary?"

Review.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont.)

Davis,

Leroy. No. 25,

1964.

"The Clergy-Laity Schism." pp. 1455-1456.

Christian

Century.

Dietrich, Paul. "Affective Minority in International Affairs." Christian CentuSf. Apr. 23, 1969. pp. 579-581. "The Dilemma of Dissent. "Dimensions of Dissent."
II

Time. Time.

Apr. Jan.

21, 1967. 26, 1968.

p,

pp.

20-22.

62.
July

"Dissenters: Rebels with Hany Causes." pp. 29-33. Douglas, James. "The Council and the Mar. 5, 1965. pp. 725-728. "Endang the War." Commonweal.'. Dec.

Newsweek.

10, 1967.

Bomb."

Cormnonweal.

10, 1965.
Dec.

pp.

295-296.
pp.

"Evangelism Frormn, Erich. Rinehart,

and lnvolvement.",

Time.

16, 1966.

63

and

65.

The Anatomy of Human Destruction. and Winston, 1973). p. 166. of Christ. (Greenwich,

(New York:

Holt,

Fromm, Srich. The ~ 1930 essay-. -pp. "Gallup."

Conn.:

Fawcett,

1973:).

25-26.
Sept.

New York Times.

22, 1966.

p,

5.
Oct.

"Goldwater Calls Churches Remiss." pp. 1 and 19. Gray, Francine Mar. 14, du Clessix. pp.

New York 'rimes.

29, 1964.

"Acts of Witness."

New Yorker.

1970.

14-21.
C.

Greenfield, Jeff. pp. 15-16., "Hanoi Stamp." Harkness, Jan. Haselden, Feb.

"The Selective

0.

11

New Republic.

July

1, 1967.

New York Times. "The Churches

pp ,

Dec.

23, 1965.

p.

5.
Century.

Georgia.

and Vietnam."

Christian

26, 1966.
Kyle.

111-113.
Christian Century.

15, 1967.

"Conc er-ned and Cormnitted." pp. 197-198. Christianity Today.

"Hawks in the

Pews."

Apr.

12, 1968.

p,

36.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont.)

Higgins, George G. pp. 9-10. Holmes, Robert Century.

"Clergy in Politics?"

New Republic.

Mar. 9, 1968.

L. "Moral Stance and Political June 51, 1966. pp. 776-777.

Action."

Christian

Hopkins, Joseph Martin; "I'm Sorry You Came." Jan. 3, 1968. pp. 14-15. Jennings, James R. p , 304 "Johnson." "The Church and Peace."

Christian

Century.

America.

Mar. 15, 1969.

New York Times

Mar. 10, 1966. p. 8. Century. Arp. 19, 1967.

. "King 3peaks for Peace." pp. 492-493. Kinsolving, Lester. Meridian star. "Latest Challenge pp. 52-53. "Left 1Ving.
II

Christian

"Should Military Dec. 23, 1973. to the Draft."

Chaplains p. 9-B.

B e Civilians?"

U. S. News. Apr. 14, 1969.

New York Times.

Feb. 1, 1966. p. 14. Christian Century. Nov. 20, 1963.

"Love, Hatred, and Politics." pp. 1423-1424. "Making an Impact ;" "Mercy Crosses p. 493. Christian

Century.

May 1, 1968. Cent.ury ,

pp. 576-577. Arp. 19, 1967.

the Peace Bridge."

Christian

"Military Clergy-Critics pp. 66-66.

Fire

Back."

U. S. News. Nov. 27, 1967.

"N.CC. General Board Takes Peace-Oriented Mar. 9,1966. p.293. Neuhaus, llichard The Annals. John. Jan.,

Action."

Christian

Century.

"The Har, the Churches, 1970. pp. 128-145.

Newsweek,

and Civil

Religion."

"New-Time Religion." "News and Views." "No Place to Hide."

June 26, 1967. Feb. 24, 1967.

p , 69. p. 580

Conunonweal.: Nation.

Oct. 4, 1965.

pp , 179-180.

1--

BIBLIOGRAPHY (cont.)

O'Gara, James. p. 158. O'Gara, James. p. 459 Opie,

"Catholics

and Peace."

Commonweal

Nov. 11, 1966.

"The Car'd.l.rraLon \var."

Commonweal

July

22, 1966.

John, Jr. "The Nodernity of Fundamentalism." May 12, 1965. pp. 608-611. Commonweal July 9, 1965.

Christian

Cent.ury ,

"Out Han in Sai.gon ;"

p. 484. Christian

Parsonage, Robert R. "The Backlash and Christian Century. Oct. 21, 1964. pp. 1300-1302. "Peace and Protestantism." "Peace Priesto 1501. Nation.

Faith."

Dec. 27, 1965. Century.

pp , 513-514. pp. 1500-

1-1uzz1ed." Christian

Dec. 8, 1965.

Peachey, Paul. "A. Priority l-'rogram on Peace?" Aug. 3, 1966. pp. 959-961. Pemberton, Prentiss pp. 11-14. and Homer Page. Christian

Christian

Century.

Cerrt.ury,

Jan 3, 1968.

Pisani, Joseph. "Conscientious Objection: No Longer Un-Catholic." Christian Cent~. July 21, 1971. pp. 876-878. "Prick1ey Sermon for LBJ." Newsweek. Policy." Nov. 27, 1967. Centug. p. 93. July 7, 1965.

"Protest Trends in ?orei~ pp. 1500-1501. "Protes tants sycho10gic~ Foreign "Public in Vietnam."

Christian

New York Times.

Dec. 7, 1965. Hearings,

p. 37. Senate

Aspects of International Relations. Relations Coomi.t.t.ee May 25, 1966. , New York Times. Har.

Backs Negotiations."

15, 1966.

p. 1.

R.eston, James. "President Johnson and the Polls." May 25, 1966. p. 46. R.eston, James. r"lfuere Did We Go ~vrong?"

New York Times.

New York Times.

No. 21, 1965.

p. E-10.
"Riding the Tiger." Time. Oct. 27,

1967.

p. 30.

BIBLIOGRAP}IT (cant.)

"Role in Vietnam.

II

New York Times. "God Talk."

Dec.

15, 1965.

p. Jan.

15 5, 1974.
pp.

Ruether, Rosemary R. pp. 25-26. "Rome and Saigon.

11

New Republic.

Christian

Century.

Sept.

4, 1963. 573-579.

1067-1078.
Affairs."

Smith, Tim. "The Seminary's Ostrich Hentality Christian Century. Apr. 23, 1969. pp , Snyder, Gr-aydon F. "Suppor-t Heans Sanctuary Century. Jan. 22, 1969. "Social Concern in the SEC." p , 805 "Speaki.nj; Out on Foreign Christian

on International

and Solidarity."

Christian

Century.

June

21, 1967.
p.

Policy."

Time.

July

30, 1965.

53.
Century.

Swamley, John M., Jr. "Conscience June 28, 1967. pp. 833-835. "I'h i.nk i.ng the Unthinkable." pp. 627-628. Thomas, Norman

and the Draft."

Christian

Christian

Century.

May 13,

1964.
p.

B.

Letter,

Christian

Century.

Apr.

21, 1965.

495.

,rToward Caesarism." nihe Unrest

"Ur-ge

Christian

Cp.ntury.

May 3, 1967. pp. 579-580.

Jan.

in U. S. Churches."

U. S. News. Christian

23, 1967.
Jan.

pp.

68-71.

Cease-Fire

in South Vietnalll."

Century.

13, 1965.

p. 37.
"U. S. Fears." New York Times. Christian Feb. Century. Apr.

9, 1965.
Jan.

p,

9.

"Vorns in Vietnam." nVietnam Debate. "Vietnam: pp. "Vigil

n

3, 196C. p. 6.

New York Times.

27, 1965. p. 10.

Centl~ry. Jan.

the War Nobody T\'lants?" Christian

3, 1968.

7-8.
Newsweek. Christian , May

in the Pentagon." the Voiceless."

24, 1965.
Jan.

p.

66.

"Voice for

Century.

3, 1968.

pp. 4-5.

",'

.. :J,

"

BD3LIOGRAPHY cont.) (

"Wednesdays in ".ashangt.en , II
p,

Christi!ll1. Century.

Apr. 27, 1966.

519.
in Vietnam?" Christian Century. Feb.

"Why Are ive Fighting

pp ,

24, 1965.

230-231.
Honsignor?" "Ar-e
\;Ie

"Who is Adequate,

Nation. Serious pp.

May

26, 1965.

p.

668.
Christian

Wilson, E. Raymond. Centurz. Feb.

About Social

Action?"

10, 1965.

169-171.
II

Wogoman, Philip. tlA l10ral .=teassessment of Our Trlar in Vietnam. Christian Century. Jan. 4, 1967. pp. 7-9. 2ohn, Gordon C. liThe Crime of Silence." pp. 354-356. Zietlow, Carl Century. Zinn, r, Commonweal. June

17, 1966.

"Hanoi and the Trek of the Phoenix." Aug. 2, 1967. pp. 1004-1006. the Horal Equation." Nation.

Christian

Howard. "Setting pp. 64-69.

Jan.

17, 1966.