MEGAN: Archbishop Wester.

Thank you  for joining us on New Mexico in Focus.

ARCHBISHOP: It's an honor to be with you,   Megan.

Thanks for inviting me.

MEGAN: In your pastoral letter, “Living in the   Light of Christ's Peace: A Conversation Towards  Nuclear Disarmament,” you talk about growing   up as part of the generation doing nuclear  drills by hiding under your desk during the   Cuban Missile Crisis.

But, it was a visit to  japan in September 2017 that really changed   your point of view on nuclear weapons.

Why?

ARCHBISHOP: Well, I just, the two Bishops and   I went on a little vacation, a part of that was to  visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

And, it was really   sobering.

And it took us out of the vacation  mode and put us into more of a reflective mode,   just looking at the muses, the art, you know,  the… all the different ways that the atomic bombs,   you know, the effect that they had in Japan.

The  pictures of people suffering after the attack.

And   it was just so horrific and especially with the  children, I mean, the whole thing was difficult,   but… I read that the children saw the bright  light and they ran to the window to see what   the light was, you know.

And I can only imagine  what happened either then or shortly after,   with the exposure of the radiation, so… And  then, coming back to Santa Fe and taking friends,   you know, through the muses and all that and  seeing, “Well, here's where those very bombs were   built and manufactured and sent off to Japan.”  So, it just really, I think the it just really   it touched me very deeply.

And so, here, it just,  I felt that we should be, as the Archdiocese and   the Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe, we should be  part of this conversation that would lead toward   non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

MEGAN: How did this trip, this realization,   affect your view of New Mexico's very large role  in the creation of nuclear weapons and the state's   ongoing role in this industry, through our  national laboratories and other things?

ARCHBISHOP: Well, it's a very complex, a good  question, Megan.

It’s a complicated question,   in my mind.

I mean, I think,  you know, it's a question of,   obviously, on one level, I'm very proud of  our laboratories, you know LANL and Sandia.

I think it's, these are wonderful scientists  who are committed to science, committed to the   country and doing, you know, good things.

I think it's… So, from that point of view,   I respect what they do and I think they do a lot  of things and can do a lot, even more things,   you know, that really build up life and help our  planet and our han beings.

But, on the other hand,   you know, these are weapons of war and that's not  their fault, you know.

Han beings have been at war   with each other since, you know, time immemorial.

So, I think it's up to all of us, you know,   citizens of the world, to speak to this, you  know, so it's not a, you know, I'm on one hand,   I'm proud of the place that New Mexico has, in  terms of helping our country, you know out and,   but we need to go beyond that and we need to use  this technology, this scientific know-how to get   beyond nuclear wars, because what we've created  is something that changes the entire dynamic,   you know, of war.

It’s just, completely, a  different… it's a paradigmatic shift.

And so, we   have to take a second look at, you know, the Just  War Theory and what constitutes a just war and all   that.

It's changed now with atomic weapons.

MEGAN: And the Just War Theory, if you could   remind our viewers and listeners, this  was a doctrine developed by the church?

ARCHBISHOP: Yes, this was St. Augustine is famous  for it, many centuries ago.

The Just War Theory,   that he looks at, you know, it has to be, you  know, an appropriate response.

It has to be   something that protects innocent civilians,  etc.

The motivation has to be looked at   it, has to have a reasonable chance  of success, has a series of criteria   that have to be met for it to be a just war.

But,  in the, with atomic weapons, as you can imagine,   all those criteria seem to get, no pun intended,  blown up, you know.

Because, that's, you know,   how do you prevent innocent people, non-combatants  from being killed in an atomic attack?

The whole   world would be destroyed, conceivably.

MEGAN: Going back to Japan and Hiroshima,   Nagasaki, my father served in the Pacific in  World War II and his ship swept minds ahead of   large invasions.

I bring this up, because despite  his Catholic Faith, he was internally divided over   what the right choice was with that first bomb  in Hiroshima, given what we knew about Japan's   seeming unwillingness to surrender.

But, you  note in your pastoral letter, there is historical   debate on how necessary these bombs were?

ARCHBISHOP: Yes, that's a… I debated that point,   you know, leaving that in or not.

I think  it's an, it's a debate.

It's an open question.

There are many who've written about it on both  sides of the issue.

Some say that, you know, and   indeed it was something that saved American lives.

And that was an important, we had to do it.

Others   say, “No.” We knew that the world was coming to a  close.

We had evidence that despite the ferocity   of the Japanese generals at the time, that we had  had a sense that they were going to surrender.

So,   I don't really know about that.

I left it in  there, because I'm trying to start a conversation   about this and this is part of that conversation.

And this is part of the, you know, even now with   the terrible tension between Russia and Ukraine  and the NATO and the West and the United States,   you know, we're living in, and, which is going  to be someone's history someday.

And, I'm sure   that they'll be looking at motivations then.

Was  this, did President Biden do the right thing by   adopting a hard line with NATO and all,  or should we have done this or that?

Or,   you know, what was Putin's, what are his… So,  I mean, that's always going to be a question,   but I think it brings to the to the  focus.

It brings focus to the fact that   these are the kinds of things that happen in our  world and will happen.

And so, if we have nuclear   weapons and if we were, heaven forbid, got to the  point where we used them on each other, it would   be catastrophic.

And so, I think that, you know,  I want this to be a conversation not really about   a historical one, about should we have dropped  the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I want   to be a conversation on should we work toward  nuclear disarmament?

And, of course, I think,   you know, we've committed to it in the past,  but we've, we, it's lagging, you know, that   commitment is lagging.

And, as, you know, many of  these protocols, we pulled out of or that they've   been deferred for the future, you know.

So… MEGAN: I like that thought of, we are living   in what will be somebody's history in the future.

It's an interesting idea to contemplate.

As you   point out, there have been people in the Catholic  Church who have spoken out against nuclear weapons   over the years and have even served prison time  for protests.

In the 1980s the U.S. Conference   of Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on  war and peace calling for progressive disarmament.

This was at a time when the possibility of  an all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union,   at the time seemed like a real possibility.

Ehy  do you see a need for to push for disarmament now?

People might feel like, “Well, we  no longer have that two minutes   to midnight on the atomic clock, right?

ARCHBISHOP: Right, yet I think that, you know,   back in 1983, when the bishops of the USCB wrote  that pastoral, I think they were, you know,   moving toward that direction of disarmament.

And,  at that time, though, there was still a belief in   deterrence.

And, I think that and the church, as  I understand it, the Catholic Church and other   religious denominations held that there was a  morally acceptable, it was morally acceptable to   have nuclear weapons for deterrence.

But, I think  we see now that Pope Francis has changed that,   and, considerably, when he went to Hiroshima  in 2019 and he gave his speech there, and he   said that the mere possession of nuclear arms is  immoral.

That really changed the whole landscape,   of the moral question of having nuclear arms in  my view.

And the view of the Pope and, I think,   that he's right, because I think that they're so  destructive and they're so powerful.

More powerful   than we can even imagine.

I mean, the bombs,  sadly, that and that were dropped in Japan in 1945   were like little pop guns compared to what we  have right now.

And so, and then and the, of the,   weapons that we have, that we and Russia have, you  know, that, you know, you only need a few hundred   weapons to be for deterrence, we have thousands  and we do know that from good docents that have   been made available to the public, that we have  plans, we've strategized, you know, for first   strikes.

These generals have talked about that.

So, it's not simply deterrence.

There have been.

So, I think that that argument is off the table  in my opinion and now we just have to really be   serious about nuclear disarmament.

MEGAN: Many of the scientists   in the Manhattan Project were focused on  creating the first bomb before Nazi, Germany   created it.

And some even had fled Nazi, Germany  and I bring that up because, today, there are   people working in the national laboratories who  may have a similar sense of mission, by protecting   the nuclear arsenal.

What would you say to them?

ARCHBISHOP: Well, I would say that the nuclear   arsenal is, it's a false sense of protection.

It's a false sense of security.

I know that,   you know, we all feel that… we watch, you know,  Rambo-like movies and the powerful United States   and… but it's false sense, because it's  not protecting us.

As a matter of fact,   is probably our greatest threat, I would say,  in the world today, you know.

We talk about   Father Pope Francis talks about Mother Earth,  your common home, and climate change, and doing   what we can to help the earth.

Well, here's a huge  threat, you know, that if this ever was unleashed,   that it would be catastrophic.

So, I don't think that it is,   by modernizing our weapons, by continuing  to develop them, we're not protecting   anybody.

It's, that's just not true.

The  real protection of, of the glow of the world,   would be for us to come together and to, and  to use diplomacy, to talk with one another   and to work out our differences that way, and  to get rid of nuclear arms.

I'm not naïve.

I   realize that, you know, a lot of these countries  are not going to just go, “Oh, okay.

Well that's,   what a fine idea you have, but Mr. President,  let's all do that.” It's going to be difficult and   we hope we can avoid even war with conventional  armaments.

But, the point is that, you know,   I compared my own mind, you know, even to the  argument we talk about with guns, you know.

If   you've got a one of those sub-automatic weapons,  you can kill a lot of people in a very short time.

If I have a knife, I might kill somebody,  but it's going to be limited, you know.

So,   both are bad, you know.

We want to get rid of all  instruments of destruction and weapons like that,   but in the sense, to be used for war, but  I think in this case, we need to get rid of   nuclear armaments because they're so destructive.

MEGAN: New Mexico is a poor state, as you know,   with very few industries producing  well-paying jobs.

The national laboratories   represent billions of dollars of economic  impact.

That includes businesses that rely   on work with the labs.

What if people face  losing their livelihoods if disarmament   brings an end to the nuclear industry here?

ARCHBISHOP: It's my view and I realize again   this is a very good question you ask.

And I have  a deep concern for many of our Catholic people and   all my fellow citizens in New Mexico working in  the labs and that's the source of livelihood.

But,   I really, firmly believe that this would not  endanger that, because, if we were really   to pursue this nuclear disarmament, it  would require even more from our labs,   because that's going to take all kinds of  technology to verify.

We're not going to   just accept the fact that a certain country  says, “Okay, we've gotten rid of…” “Oh,   thank you very much.

We'll send you a thank you  note.” No.

We want to, as President Reagan said,   “Trust but verify.” That's a huge industry right  there, to make sure that everybody has indeed   disarmed and to make sure that we have ways that  nobody, especially a rogue nation or terrorists,   could not come up with a nuclear, a bomb.

So,  that's gonna… and I think, also, there are many,   many other things that our labs are already  doing that are, that are, that promote life   instead of destruction.

I think that would be… I  would compare it, myself, to any, you know, in the   industrial revolution, the computer revolution…  all the….

when they've been these huge, you know,   macro transitions in our world, there is, I don't,  I know that there will be some people, no doubt,   individuals, well it might be hard and not easy to  make the transition.

Look, I like, I'm, you know,   I look, I'm from the Bay area.

Look at the toll  takers and now everything is automated.

You   just drive right through.

So, I'm sure those toll  takers maybe had early retirement, but they also,   there were jobs created when you had to put in  the new fast track systems and all that.

So,   I think that, I think it's very possible and  furthermore, I think this is so necessary,   disarmament is so necessary, that if there are  sacrifices and there may be some, and I would,   you know, I understand that, but there would be  important sacrifices for the sake of humanity,   because we're on a path right now that's insane.

MEGAN: As you note in your pastoral letter and   this is a quote: “In recent years, Pope  Francis has led the church in a dramatic   shift away from supporting nuclear weapons  and deterrence, to denouncing them as immoral,   calling for their complete abolition.” And  in 2017, Pope Francis publicly declared that   nuclear deterrence is morally unacceptable.

I need to ask you, given the revelations of   widespread sexual abuse in the church, which  also failed to address these abuses for years,   how challenging is it to take a moral stance  such as this letter does and ensure that people   will receive it in the spirit that you intend?

ARCHBISHOP: Yes, that's true, Megan.

I acknowledge   that.

I think that sexual abuse scandal has been a  terrible, terrible blight in the Catholic Church.

And, it's not just the Catholic Church, of course,  but it certainly hit the Catholic Church very hard   and it's something that… and I think it does very  much weaken our moral voice.

There's no doubt   about it.

I don't think, however, though that that  means that we should be silent.

I think we still   need to speak up and still hope that people will  respond.

I think that some will point to that.

They'll say, “Well, I'm not going to listen  to them.

I mean, they couldn't get their house   in order, you know, with the abuse scandal.

So,  what do they know?” That would be of course not a   logical argument.

That's not a reason to dispute,  you know, what we're putting out in the letter.

But, I think some people will say that  and that's unfortunate.

And I regret that.

I do think that since 2002, especially with  our Dallas meeting of the Bishops in Dallas,   you know, that the Catholic, that's something to  be looked at, what the church has done since then.

In the last 20 years and to form safe environment  programs and to, we've spent millions of dollars   with the John Jay college of law and the criminal  law and to do a cause and effect studies and to   look at, you know, what, how did this happen  in the church?

How did this abuse take place?

So, I think the church has done quite a bit.

Again, there'll be many people that, you know,   will say, “Oh that was wonderful.

We respect what  you've done.” Others will say, “Well, big deal,   you know.” They're not going to be too inclined  to pat us on the back.

But, I do think that   we've done a lot and frankly, if you look at the  statistics and look at the, you know, the number   of abuses taking place since these programs, it's  low.

So, I think there's evidence that the church   has worked hard to really do the best we can  and to rectify those terrible, terrible sins.

And, secondly, I think that the document speaks  for itself, the logic, you know, of the importance   of nuclear disarmament hopefully will speak for  itself.

But, you do raise a good, important…   I'm glad you raised it, because it needs to be  said.

MEGAN: Do you, how do you feel about how the   letter has been received so far?

I guess, in light  of that reality, do you think that the dynamic   we just talked about has impacted that at all?

ARCHBISHOP: I haven't heard that, no.

I did, I   think I did hear one or two people in passing, you  know, say something like that it's very, you know,   kind of in passing, but not, nothing… the response  I've gotten mainly has been very positive,   actually.

I do think that I'm probably  hearing from the choir, you know.

I'm,   people that would be, you know, agree and I think  that's, you know, but I am, I'm hoping eventually   to go up to Los Alamos and speak.

We have a  group up there, Catholic scientists and I'd   like to speak to them.

And I've talked to the  pastor up there, Father John Daniel and that   Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish in Los Alamos.

And so, I'd like to, because, again, you know, and   I think there was kind of a sense, “Well, do you  really want to go up to Los Alamos right now?”   You know, maybe better stay away for a while, but  I, you know, I'm not, I wouldn't go up there to,   you know, to debate.

I would go up there to  learn and to convert.

My whole point of this   is to start a conversation about it, to hear what  people have to say and that's the only way we're   going to get to this goal, because there may be  some people who bring up very valid objections   that I need to hear and I need to learn from.

And  so, we need to talk about those and to see what,   you know, what those would be and given those  objections how can we take them and how can we,   you know, still come to this end of nuclear  disarmament.

So, I'm not, I don't want to,   you know, start by, you know, Pope Francis,  I think famously said, “Yes, you know,   the Bishops of the church are teachers, but a good  teacher has to listen first.” So, my hope would   be to listen to people and what they have to say  and I hope then they would in turn listen to me or   to us and see how we can make progress in this.

MEGAN: It's a bit less confrontational than the   tactics some have taken to speak out against  nuclear weapons from the church in the past.

I’m thinking of Dorothy Day.

I'm thinking of  the nun you mentioned in your pastoral letter…  ARCHBISHOP: And Father Louis Vitale, you  know, they had a more… it was not a, you know,   well it was, they broke the law.

I mean, that's,  and that's clearly what they wanted to do.

They   wanted to make a statement and that was,  you know, and there's a room for protest,   I think, within reason.

I have my own opinions on  that, but I do think there's a room for that and   there's a room for prophetic voices and to get  people's attention.

And, there's always going   to be a judgment call, how best to do that and if  you're making more friends than enemies, you know,   that's the judgment call.

But, I do, I do it, I  admire people who feel strongly on these issues,   but I believe that the best way to do it is to  continue to try to dialogue and get to our elected   representatives, and, you know, we presented  this pastoral letter to President Biden and   his people in the West Wing and hope that it  gets to him and we're going to do the same   with our elected officials here in New Mexico.

MEGAN: Your letter is also a call to non-violence,   which goes beyond nuclear weapons.

You invoke  Martin Luther King, who says Jesus calls on us   to love our enemies.

In some ways this is far  more challenging a call than seeking nuclear   disarmament.

How realistic is that?

ARCHBISHOP: Well, that's, you know,   again and that's a good question, Megan.

And it's,  of course it's a very American question, you know.

We are very utilitarian in the United States and  practical and, yes, it is, but I believe you’ve   got to put the cookie jar up high, you know.

I  think that it's, I think it is realistic.

I think,   though, that again I'll have to speak in my own  terms, as a person of faith, and in the Catholic   Faith, I believe that the most persuasive argents  are made, you know, in humility and are made in in   peaceful ways.

And that the best approach is not  to use power, but to use the way of the cross,   you know.

For us, Jesus said those who live  by the sword will die by the sword and so,   I know that it does sound very naïve, you know,  to live in peace, you know.

And, but I firmly   believe that that, you know, planting those  seeds will produce great fruit in the future.

I also believe that it's going to take  a long time.

I don't, you know, human   nature being what it is, that flight or fight  instinct that we have in us and then, even now,   we see it's so exacerbated with the polarization.

And in our country and the world and our church,   even the Catholic Church, you know.

So, there's  a lot of, it's hard for people to sit down and   really listen and really, you know ,peacefully and  to solve their problems peacefully, but I believe   you have to start someplace.

And I do believe  we have to embrace the fact that Jesus   proclaimed a gospel of peace.

He was very clear on  that, you know, that he and he died for, I mean,   he, you know, when he was in front of Pontius  Pilate, he didn't call down the legions of angels,   you know, to wipe them out.

He just, you know,  went to his death in the way of the cross in a   very vulnerable way, but I think we see a lot of  examples where that vulnerability is very powerful   and where it can, you know, the pen is mightier  than the sword, they say.

Let's hope so.

MEGAN: And you say in your pastoral letter that  and you've been saying in our conversation,   you want to start a statewide dialogue  around these issues.

How do you see   these proceeding?

What will they look like?

ARCHBISHOP: Well, I think, you know, one example   I gave already would be if I go up to, you know,  Los Alamos, but that's just me.

I would like to   see our parishes for example and they're in their  peace and justice commissions and committees,   you know, maybe take this up as a topic.

And, I'd  like to see us, you know, writing to our elected   officials to, you know, express our concern  about this issue.

I think, you know, people can   certainly, there's a lot written about it.

People  can educate themselves about the matter, instead   of just accepting what we hear, but to really  go into it and invest, investigate it and read   about it.

There's, we put in the letters a lot of  practical things that people can do and able to   kind of in, in further the conversation, I think  that the more we think about it, pray about it,   read about it, then we'll be able to kind of  converse with others and to really talk about it.

I think our elected officials, you know, that's a  very important conversation, I think, because they   have the power and the ability and as our elected  officials to serve us and to serve this cause.

And, you know, if they really see that people are  serious about it, I think they'll respond.

I mean,   let's face it, they want to be reelected it  would appear, from my experience, that elected   officials like to be reelected.

And they seem to  make decisions on that and whenever we go to talk   at the Capitol, in DC, or here in New Mexico, at  the Roundhouse, I hear that all the time.

“Well,   Archbishop, this is an election year, you know.

Let's talk, we'll talk, do this later.” So,   I'm discovering now that just about every  year is an election year for somebody.

So,   I think that if we can convince them, you know,  and I've talked to them and they say, “Well,   you need to let us know,” I mean, I remember even  talking to Speaker Pelosi years ago on immigration   and she was talking about, “Well, you got to  get the people to, right, we need to get those,   our elected officials need to hear from the  people.” And if they're getting 10 letters on your   side and 10,000 letters on the other side, guess  who's gonna where they're going to lean towards.

So, I think that's a very important way to do it  as well, but I think it's the personal commitment   and frankly, I think part of what we're suggesting  by an action item, that this is not an easy   topic.

I mean, who wants to think about nuclear  annihilation, you know?

Who wants to think about,   even now with Ukraine and Russia, I  mean, I don't know about you, but I,   as I listen to NPR in the morning, you know, I  get, I sometimes, especially my teeth, I'm going,   “Oh brother, this is getting serious.” you know.

I hope that you know there's no missteps.

I mean,   I remember, I remember reading fail safe  when I was a kid you know and that was,   I remember being scared reading that book, you  know.

And I know, historically, if that, if   that Russian Admiral had, he was one of the three  that had the, launching of the nuclear… He didn't…   Ii don't know what I'd like to find out what  happened to him, but Ii mean, you know, that   was a close call.

We've had several close calls  and the, and the, and the Cuban Missile Crisis   was a close call.

I mean, I've talked to people  and one fellow, it was in that, known those ships,   you know… He said they had, they were loaded for  bear.

They were ready to go you know.

So, anyway…  MEGAN: You do have a list of some of  those close calls in your pastoral letter.

I don't know if people know just how many  close calls we've had over the decades.

ARCHBISHOP: Right here in Albuquerque, a bomb was  dropped.

Luckily it didn't fire because of the,   it was really, what I… my research… it was  a switch.

It was a little on-off switch,   a little low voltage switch that didn't fire  properly.

The other things did go and then   it didn't and that didn't explode.

But yeah,  it's, then again you know Murphy's Law, I mean,   you can live with murphy's law if you're  going to maybe stub your toe or you know   something like that, but with nuclear  weapons, murphy's law makes me nervous.

MEGAN: How can people be involved in  these dialogues?

You mentioned some   of the parishes social justice committees,  but I think you want to engage beyond even   Catholics?

You want to engage everyone, right?

ARCHBISHOP: I think Pax Christie for example is   a group, Catholic group that's been around  for 50 years almost and they've been doing   a lot of work in this regard.

A lot, a lot….

I'm discovering, you know, writing this piece,   pastor, from a pastor's point of view, but I'm an  old steep learning curve.

I'm learning, because   I've heard from a lot of people and all kinds of  groups, you know, nuke watch here, New Mexico and   all kinds of groups and all kinds of groups that  are working on this.

So, I think by, you know,   investigating, going online, investigating all  these groups and seeing what they have to say,   supporting them, you know, financially… these  are all ways of helping to further this cause,   I think, and showing our concern.

But, you want  to have dialogue, so you might, you want people to   be in here who may not might not be in support of  these groups, right?

You want to be talking about   working in the industry or other issues, exactly.

I think that's very important, because, you know,   if you just talk to people agree with you, you  don't get very far.

We've gotta… and that's   why I said earlier, we've got to really talk to  people.

I think it's more productive in a way,   you know, once we've done our homework, to talk to  people who do disagree and to find out why and to   see, “Well, are they right,” you know?

If they  are, then we need to change our view, you know,   maybe.

But, I don't believe that's true.

I think,  you know, but I think that we need to engage that   conversation and the truth will set you free.

And,  I think we mustn't be afraid of the truth and we   want to, you know, if someone says something  that's an objection, we need to listen to that   and there may, there may be some very valid… and,  of course, a lot of this too, is, it's temporal,   you know.

It seems to me, you know, in other words  people may give objections, we'll say, “Okay,   I can see where that's true today,” you know.

For example, today, February 9th is probably not   a good day to talk about, you know, what the  United States is going to do to reduce our   nuclear armaments, you know.

Right now we've got  to get this Ukraine crisis, you know, de-escalate   that and we have other things to tend to, but I  think we need to say in the long run, you know,   and to open this up and really see what's possible  and not look at it as, you know, all these   peaceniks they're just a pain in the neck, you  know.

They're preventing us from moving forward.

Another thing that I think I have to say and I,  you know, it's follow the money.

There is a lot of   money in the nuclear armament industry.

I remember  getting sick to my stomach when we at our first,   you know, time we went out in Iraq and I got a  fact in those days factors were more popular and   advising me to buy stock in this nuclear arm  and that in this armament, you know, they make   guns.

And ,I thought, isn't that awful, you  know.

You know, to be honest, weapons, weaponry,   the United States is one of the largest suppliers  of weapons in the world, you know, and there's a   lot of money.

And so, there's going to be a lot  of objections to looking at nuclear disarmament   and a lot of objections to living peaceably, you  know.

So, we have to learn, I guess, for people   to make money out of peace instead of waging war.

MEGAN: Well, Archbishop Wester, I appreciate you   taking time to talk with us.

ARCHBISHOP: Well, Thank you,   Megan.

It's been an honor really and a joy to…  I've heard your voice so much over the years,   it's nice to see you your face.

So,  thank you very much.

Appreciate you.