Cardinal Parolin tells UN: Self-defense does not justify an arms race
Cardinal Pietro Parolin told the U.N. General Assembly that a nation’s right to self-defense must not become an excuse for a massive arms race. He especially cautioned against rearmament involving nuclear or autonomous weapons and called for a shared commitment to disarmament. Parolin cited Pope Leo XIV’s call to replace a culture of power with negotiation, dialogue, and diplomacy as the standard means of resolving conflicts. He delivered the remarks in New York on Sept. 26 at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly’s 81st session.
1 day ago
Cardinal Pietro Parolin told the U.N. General Assembly that countries may defend themselves, but that right should not become a justification for a massive arms buildup. He called for disarmament and diplomacy, particularly in relation to nuclear and autonomous weapons. 1
Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state, spoke in New York on Sept. 26 at the opening of the General Assembly’s 81st session, whose theme was “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations that delivers for All.” 1
He affirmed the legitimate right of nations to provide for their own defense while warning against using self-defense as a pretext for rearmament, especially involving nuclear or autonomous weapons. He said lasting peace requires a shared commitment to disarmament. 1
Parolin invoked Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, citing its call to move away from a “culture of power” toward a “culture of negotiation,” with dialogue and diplomacy serving as standard ways to resolve conflicts. 1
The report places Parolin’s remarks within Leo’s stated opposition to nuclear weapons: it notes that the pope rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that he supported them and, in July, wrote a foreword to Disarmed and Disarming: Peace Is a Gift, a book addressing peace and nuclear disarmament. 1*
Self-defense has moral limits amid nuclear disarmament
The Catholic position holds together two truths: states may defend their people, but self-defense does not justify unlimited armament or the use of weapons that destroy indiscriminately. The right to defend is bounded by necessity and moral limits; nuclear disarmament is therefore not indifference to security, but a responsibility to pursue security by means consistent with human life and peace.
A state may possess only the means necessary for legitimate defense. Excessive stockpiling and indiscriminate arms trading cannot be morally justified, and the Church warns that an arms race can worsen the causes of conflict rather than secure peace. This is the principle of sufficiency: defense may be real, but it must not become an excuse for acquiring ever more destructive capacity. Pope Benedict XVI likewise recognized a state’s duty to protect its people while warning that excessive armaments can threaten the very life and peace they are meant to defend.
Nuclear weapons pose a particularly grave moral problem because their effects may not distinguish combatants from civilians. Catholic teaching rejects indiscriminate attacks and condemns weapons of mass destruction that cannot distinguish between soldiers and noncombatants. The danger is not only their actual use: nuclear deterrence relies on the threat of catastrophic violence. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says deterrence raises serious moral reservations and calls for Cold War-style nuclear deterrence policies to be replaced by concrete disarmament measures grounded in dialogue and multilateral negotiation.
This does not mean that a nation’s security concerns are imaginary or that unilateral disarmament is necessarily prudent. Catholic teaching affirms the right and duty of legitimate defense, while the supplied sources do not set out a detailed judgment on the prudence of any particular disarmament proposal or timetable. But the response to danger must aim beyond a permanent balance of threats: the Church calls for progressive nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, negotiation, and a reduction in reliance on weapons of mass destruction.
So the moral question is not simply whether a state may defend itself; it is whether its means of defense are necessary, proportionate, and compatible with the protection of civilians. Self-defense is a legitimate responsibility, not a blank cheque for an arms race.