Calling nuclear weapons immoral, Archbishop Wester urges halt to production of plutonium pits
Archbishop John C. Wester urged the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to halt expansion of plutonium pit production, labeling nuclear weapons immoral and genocidal. A written statement read by a priest at a May 14 public hearing drew over 130 in‑person and 100 online participants, most of whom opposed the draft environmental impact statement. Wester challenged the NNSA’s claim that increased pit production complies with the 1970 Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, arguing the treaty obliges nuclear‑armed states to pursue disarmament. The NNSA proposal seeks to ramp up pit production, with a target of at least 80 pits, a plan that the archbishop and many attendees criticized.
4 months ago
Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe publicly condemned nuclear weapons as “immoral” and “genocidal,” urging the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to halt the expansion of plutonium‑pit production. His statement was read at a May 14 public hearing on the agency’s draft environmental impact statement, which proposes increasing pit output to meet a 2015 defense mandate. The archbishop’s appeal aligns with recent papal and Catholic teaching that nuclear weapons violate human dignity and the peace‑building mission of the Church1 2.
A public hearing held on May 14 attracted more than 130 in‑person attendees and about 100 online participants, most of whom opposed the NNSA’s plan. A priest from Hiroshima delivered Wester’s written remarks. Commenters raised concerns about environmental impact, water use, waste disposal, and worker health, and questioned why a “no‑action” alternative was not seriously considered1 2.
The NNSA’s draft environmental impact statement calls for producing at least 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030, as required by the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. Production would be split between Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico) and the Savannah River Site (South Carolina), potentially reaching around 200 pits annually. The current annual production figure remains classified, according to NNSA spokesperson Toni Chiri1 2.
The Catholic Church’s Catechism condemns “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants,” labeling it a crime against God and humanity. While the Catechism does not explicitly call possession immoral, Pope Francis (2022) affirmed that both use and possession of nuclear weapons are immoral. Pope Leo XIV, in his first year, has reiterated calls for peace, warned of modern warfare’s dangers, and urged renewed disarmament efforts1 2.
NNSA officials emphasized that nuclear deterrence and “atomic strength” are essential to U.S. national security, framing their mission as a means to deter adversaries. The agency stated it values public input and will consider comments when finalizing its environmental impact statement, which is expected early next year1 2.
Public comments on the draft environmental impact statement are accepted until July 16, after which the NNSA will issue a final decision, though some observers note that statutory requirements may limit the agency’s flexibility to halt pit production1 2.
Assess Catholic doctrine on disarmament versus nuclear proliferation
Catholic doctrine draws a clear moral and pastoral line: disarmament—especially “integral” and verifiable disarmament of nuclear weapons—is a duty tied to justice and peace, while nuclear proliferation is treated as an intrinsically grave threat to the common good and to the possibility of genuine security through trust rather than fear.
Catholic social doctrine proposes the goal of “general, balanced and controlled disarmament.”
It also applies a moral principle often summarized as “sufficiency”: each state should possess only the means necessary for legitimate defense, not an excessive stockpile.
When arms accumulate beyond sufficiency—or are traded indiscriminately—the Church says this cannot be morally justified and must be evaluated in light of international norms on non-proliferation, production, trade, and use.
The Church’s moral critique is not only about the technical catastrophe of nuclear use; it is also about the logic by which peace is supposedly maintained.
The Compendium states that the Magisterium sees “deterrence” (especially Cold War-style deterrence) as giving rise to “strong moral reservations,” because it does not ensure peace and risks aggravating the causes of war.
It adds that policies of nuclear deterrence must be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament carried out “based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations.”
This line is echoed by Pope Francis’ and the Holy See’s insistence that security cannot rest on a “balance of arms” or a “balance of fear.” Francis teaches that the possession of nuclear weapons is “not the answer” to security, and that attempts to defend peace through a false sense of security “poison relationships” and obstruct dialogue.
In the Holy See’s recent UN discourse, the same point is framed as a move away from “a balance of arms toward integral disarmament.”
A recurring theme is that the resources and human energies devoted to nuclear programs are not neutral. They compete with what the Church calls the goods of peace, development, and solidarity.
Pope Francis links the arms race to wasted resources that could serve integral development, and he calls for rebuilding mutual trust so that dialogue becomes possible.
Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI emphasizes the moral and spiritual conversion necessary for real disarmament, warning that armaments can even distort behavior and psychology, and that arms expenditures divert resources from development.
One of the most striking aspects of the Church’s teaching—reiterated across recent Magisterial-linked statements—is that the Church condemns not only nuclear use but also possession.
A Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences appendix summarizes Pope Francis’ teaching that:
“the use of nuclear weapons, as well as their mere possession, is immoral.”
This is also reaffirmed by the Holy See in 2022: the Church states that the “mere possession” of nuclear weapons is immoral, and that trying to defend peace through a “balance of terror” fosters mistrust and blocks dialogue.
In 2024, Pope Francis similarly affirms “the immorality of manufacturing and possessing nuclear weapons.”
In Catholic doctrine, proliferation is not merely a strategic variable; it is a moral hazard because it multiplies the risk of catastrophe and worsens the social conditions for peace.
Pope Francis speaks of a “break down” in the climate of distrust and warns against dismantling the international arms control framework.
When multilateralism erodes, the world becomes more unstable precisely because trust and verifiable agreements weaken.
The Holy See’s UN statements similarly report that major disarmament and transparency instruments are being discarded and that modernization expands while resources are squandered that could address humanitarian needs.
Catholic teaching does not separate non-proliferation from disarmament; it treats them as interconnected.
The USCCB background on nuclear weapons describes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the “cornerstone” of efforts “to curb and reverse the spread of nuclear weapons,” noting that it:
Thus, proliferation (acquisition of nuclear weapons by those not already authorized) is, within Catholic moral reasoning, a direct rupture of the path the Church identifies toward peace through restraint, limitation, and verified steps.
Francis ties nuclear arsenals to a “perverse dichotomy” where stability is pursued through fear and mistrust, which then obstructs dialogue.
The Holy See adds that the risks include not only deliberate use but also the danger of accidents and involuntary scenarios stemming from maintaining these weapons.
From this perspective, proliferation is not just “more weapons”; it is more probability of moral and political breakdown—and a greater temptation to treat fear as security.
Catholic teaching strongly affirms the right and duty of political communities to defend the common good. The Catechism emphasizes that the common good requires peace and that authority should secure society by morally acceptable means, grounded in legitimate defense.
But the Church’s nuclear teaching attempts to reconcile defense with morality through the principle of sufficiency (only what is necessary) and through the insistence that deterrence-as-a-system is morally inadequate.
In practice, this means:
The USCCB repeatedly summarizes this as a moral obligation to move away from reliance on nuclear weapons, proposing concrete disarmament steps rather than nuclear deterrence.
Given the above premises, Catholic doctrine implies the following moral judgments.
Because nuclear weapons—even mere possession—are said to be immoral, proliferation (which increases their number and likelihood of catastrophic outcomes) contradicts Catholic moral reasoning.
And because the Church treats non-proliferation and disarmament as mutually reinforcing elements of the NPT framework, proliferation undermines the very structure the Church identifies as the “cornerstone” for reversing spread.
Catholic doctrine does not present disarmament and proliferation as competing “strategies” with neutral moral weight. Instead, it presents disarmament as a duty and a path to authentic peace—moving away from nuclear deterrence and toward multilateral, verifiable measures—while it regards proliferation as a grave threat to peace because it magnifies fear, mistrust, risk of catastrophe, and the immoral condition of possessing nuclear weapons.