Today marks the sixty-fifth anniversary of the ending of the attempt of Japan to conquer East Asia and form a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In that attempt, Japanese forces murdered some three to ten million civilians. This figure does not include civilian deaths caused from military operations which resulted from Japanese aggression or famines that ensued. It is estimated that some 20,000,000 Chinese died as a result of Japan’s invasion. Approximately a million Filipinos died during the military occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese. The video above depicts the battle of Manila in which 100,000 Filipino civilians died. During lulls in the fighting, Japanese troops would engage in orgies of rape and murder, with decapitation being a common method of killing. Special targets were Red Cross workers, young women, children, nuns, priests, prisoners of war and hospital patients.
Victory by the US and its allies brought this Asian Holocaust to a stop. Perhaps something else to recall on Catholic blogs each August.
Ends do not justify the means. The Church is very clear that the intentional killing of civilians is always unjust.
Now the Church is very clear. She has not been so clear in the past, as a cursory examination of the history of the Church would reveal. I find the August bomb follies a sickening ahistorical bout of Monday Morning quarterbacking by people who usually have not a clue about the actual historical record.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the end products of a ferocious and brutal war of conquest waged by the Empire of Japan. The August bomb follies focus on them and ignore the hecatombs of corpses produced by the Japanese. Every August I intend to remind people as much as possible about what brought about the atomic bombings, and why they were necessary.
Donald – I certainly agree with you. My Dad (US Army Platoon Sgt) was a “guest of the Emperor” (that means he was a Japanese POW) for almost 4 years. My Dad told me that when the atomic bombs were dropped, the POWs in the Japanese camps noticed a change in the behavior of the guards. This made my Dad nervous as there was a standing order to kill all POWs if the Americans landed on the Japanese mainland. The POWs were looking for signs of that and planned to go out with a fight. My Dad had several sticks of dynamite he had stolen from the copper mine he labored in, and he kept these wrapped in an oil cloth buried about 6 inches underneath where he laid his head at night. I am not kidding when an I say these POWs planned to not accept execution without a fight. My Dad talked to one of the guards and he said that there was a horrific bomb dropped by the Americans on two Japanese cities. He described to my Dad the results. My Dad was really scratching his head wondering what kind of bomb that could be. The guard told him it “even killed the little fishes in the streams for miles around the cities”. My Dad didn’t know of a bomb that could do the things this guard described. It was a bit of a mystery to the POWs, but they knew it was big, because of the marked change of behavior of the guards (they appeared less focused, more distracted, kind of stunned). My Dad believes that these two atomic bombs saved him, of course, but also many other people. I have never met a Japanese POW yet who didn’t agree with my Dad 100% on that . I know he is correct, and I laugh off the revisionists.
I took my kids to see the Enola Gaye at the newer Smithsonian Museum near Dulles Airport. I pointed to the plane and explained to them that we would not be here, if it had not been for that very plane flying its famous mission. It was a great history lesson for them. I know some have felt displaying that plane was controversial – definitely not for our family! I didn’t know that that plane was displayed there until I got to the museum. Many things went through my head looking at it.
In the video above of the Japanese signing the surrender papers, my Dad was on a ship heading home, with a lot of other POWs (American and British). He actually got to see from afar this surrender event as they passed by. My Dad said that a British Man of War ship lowered their flag in honor of the POWs on the transport ship. A British navy man and former POW told him that that was an unheard of honor at that time. My Dad and all the other POWs really appreciated their honor.
I appreciate the videos above and discussion. It is important to remember history and learn all the lessons we can from it.
“The POWs were looking for signs of that and planned to go out with a fight. My Dad had several sticks of dynamite he had stolen from the copper mine he labored in, and he kept these wrapped in an oil cloth buried about 6 inches underneath where he laid his head at night.”
Brian, I can’t even fathom the type of courage possessed by your Dad and his fellow prisoners. Starved, and no doubt beaten, they still planned to fight back. I stand in awe of them. You are correct that it was the intention of the Japanese to murder all POWs at the beginning of the invasion of the Home Islands. Of course captivity by the Japanese consisted of either murder or slow motion murder through starvation and beatings. Approximately 27.1% of all American POWs died in captivity, seven times the death rate of American POWs held by Germany. If the war had not been brought to a sudden halt, I have no doubt that you are correct and that your heroic father and his brave compatriots would have never survived their ordeal.
I find the August bomb follies a sickening ahistorical bout of Monday Morning quarterbacking by people who usually have not a clue about the actual historical record.
Exactly. Ask a Filipino what Japanese occupation was like – one I met many years ago had an uncle who was shot dead in the street for failing to show the proper subservient attitude toward Japanese soldiers.
The annual August self-castigation beloved by so many strikes me as just another example of Western self-hatred.
For the 1000th time: the U.S. was not targeting non-combatants with the atomic bombs. In fact, that would have been impossible given the fact that the line bewteen combatant and non-combatatnt was completely erased by the Imperial Japanese with their conscription of practically the entire adult population and training small children to roll under alllied tanks with explosives strapped to themselves.
This is a salient fact calumnious jackasses like Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and the pseudo-Catholic ignoramus Amen corner deliberately ignore.
Furthermore, if you search for a Catholic magisterial condemnation of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you will search in vain.
“Every of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation” CCC 2314
L’Osservatore Romano in 1945 deplored the atomic bombing of Japan because of lack of protection for civilians. Bishop Fulton Sheen thought it was a horror. Eisenhower did not think it was necessary.
Learning
“Eisenhower did not think it was necessary.”
I assume Learning that you have been reading one of those idiotic cut and paste lists of quotations of famous Americans who supposedly opposed the bombings. Eisenhower first gave his opinion that the atomic bombings were unnecessary in 1963. At the time he said nothing. In 63 I think he also prefaced his remarks with the comment that he had been focused on the war in Europe and knew little about the situation in the Pacific war prior to the bombings. General Bradley in one of his letters mentions that he was the one who told Eisenhower about Hiroshima, remarking that it would knock Japan out of the war, and Eisenhower made no dissent to this observation.
Bishop’s Sheen observation was made long after the war and after he knew how the wind was blowing in the Church. Bishop Sheen always tailored his thoughts to what the current policy of the Church was. The pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II Sheen could have had some interesting debates.
“L’Osservatore Romano in 1945 deplored the atomic bombing of Japan because of lack of protection for civilians.”
It also said that the bombings were a response to Axis aggression and Pope Pius XII when an American diplomat complained about the editorial said it was not authorized by him.
An excellent resource for learning about what people actually said about the bombings at the time is Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism
http://www.amazon.com/Hiroshima-History-Robert-James-Maddox/dp/082621732X
“It is true – as Kuznick says – that Eisenhower claimed in 1963 to have opposed use of the A-bomb and to have forcefully argued his case to Secretary of War Henry Stimson. Kuznick does not however disclose (and Raimondo obviously has no idea) that independent evidence shows that Eisenhower’s recollection cannot be taken at face value. Parts of it are clearly false and the rest is unconfirmed. (The evidence is set out in Professor Maddox’s volume cited above, pp. 121-4, and in Barton J. Bernstein, “Ike and Hiroshima: Did He Oppose It?”, Journal of Strategic Studies, 10, 1987.) It is also true that Admiral William Leahy later condemned the use of the Bomb, but there is no reputable evidence that he did so at the time. One could go through a list of these military figures and say the same thing in each case. The chronology matters, and is the reason I carefully stated in my Guardian piece: “Contrary to popular myth, there is no documentary evidence that [Truman’s] military commanders advised him the bomb was unnecessary for Japan was about to surrender.” So far as I can tell from his conceptual chaos, Raimondo believes that almost all Truman’s commanders opposed the A-bomb decision. He’s wrong.”
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/still-more-on-h.html
In regard to the August bomb follies, one of the things I find most irritating about it is the rank historical ignorance on display each year. People rely on the same recycled drek floating around the internet and never do any actual research or read any of the relevant books on the subject.
“Every of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation” CCC 2314
This CCC statement, taken form Gaudium et Spes #80, IS NOT a proof text to condemn the Hiroshinma and Nagasaki bombings. For one, it does not address the issue of the line between combatant and non-combatant being erased. Secondly, it could not do so without contradicting moral principles already recognized by the Church.
“I assume Learning that you have been reading one of those idiotic cut and paste lists of quotations….”
Three quarters of blogging is other cutting and pasting other quotes. St. Paul did it a lot too back in his day.
Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul V thought nukes were evil also. If they did not condemn America out right it may have been for prudence sake. I think you folks are just making excuses for a total war mentality. The USA is not the only purveyor of this evil idea but has surely participated in them from the march through Georgia to the Indian wars to Dresden. Consequentialism in action.
“Three quarters of blogging is other cutting and pasting other quotes.”
Doing it unthinkingly is a stupid waste of time. You have no actual knowledge of the controversy regarding Eisenhower’s remarks but were merely parroting what you had read on some anti-Hiroshima bombing site.
“Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul V thought nukes were evil also. If they did not condemn America out right it may have been for prudence sake.”
Good of you to volunteer to read their minds. Nuclear weapons are no more good or evil than any other weapon at the disposal of man. The good or the ill is in the use of the weapon, why and how.
“The USA is not the only purveyor of this evil idea but has surely participated in them from the march through Georgia to the Indian wars to Dresden.”
Paleocon pontificating. Come back when you can actually argue a case with something more than ex cathedra statements from yourself.
[My Dad had several sticks of dynamite he had stolen from the copper mine he labored in, and he kept these wrapped in an oil cloth buried about 6 inches underneath where he laid his head at night.”]
No doubt the shameless slandering revisionist “apologists” would castigate your father by waving the seventh commandment about and intoning “thou shalt not steal” while your father (who in my eyes is a hero) did what he needed to do in order to survive. And of course if he had shot a bomb laden child waddling towards him in Okinawa or elsewhere these same sorts would be calling him a “murderer.” I have no doubt based on what I have observed from these sorts over the years that they would do that -and my money is that if there was not a sizable Catholic population in Nagasaki these sorts would not give a damn about this issue. Their fallacious provincialism is evident to anyone with eyes to see and it stinks much worse than three week old moldy fruit. Not to mention the constant appeal to “consequentialism” is bunk, I am probably the only Catholic in recent years who has actually bothered to explain what that term (along with “proportionalism”) even means* and it is quite evident that these clowns do not know what they are talking about.
Indeed so many of these sorts have no problem engaging in the most uncharitable, unethical, irrational, and unCatholic of behaviour towards those who do not tip the biretta, bow three times, and incense uncritically their pro-offered proof texts from various and sundry church sources, etc. That unquestionably involves objectively grave matter on their parts and when you further consider that (i) they are not coerced to do so and (ii) the knowledge of these people (even so-called “big time apologists”) is far from being even vincible most of the time but instead is what would be called “crass ignorance”**, this does not bode well for them. For essentially, most “apologists” who approach these things are arguably guilty of mortal sin. (Particularly those who ignorantly attempt to brand what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as “war crimes” via shoddy methodology and the sort of Monday morning quarterbacking that if they had a conscience on these matter should make them ashamed of themselves.)
* http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2008_10_05_archive.html#8806531154296846595
** http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2009_08_02_archive.html#3846558720127615604
So basically, your position is that nothing can be labelled consequentialist or proportionalist thinking unless a particular decision is made only 100% purely on consequentialist/proportionalist grounds. If anything else factors in, even 0.000001%, it is no longer consequentialist/proportionalist. Just want to be clear.
Bishop’s Sheen observation was made long after the war and after he knew how the wind was blowing in the Church. Bishop Sheen always tailored his thoughts to what the current policy of the Church was.
Oh?
From The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May 1, 1946:
Use of Atom Bomb Assailed by Sheen
Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen of Catholic University in a sermon on April 7 in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York scored our use of the bomb on Hiroshima as an act contrary to the moral law and said, “We have invited retaliation for that particular form of violence.”
Both obliteration bombing and use of the atomic bomb are immoral, Msgr. Sheen said, because “they do away with the moral distinction that must be made in every war—a distinction between civilians and the military.”
After quoting the Pope’s warning against destructive use of atomic energy in an address made at the opening session of the Pontifical Academy of Science on Feb. 21, 1943, Msgr. Sheen said: “It is to be noted that the Holy Father not only knew about atomic energy and something of its power, but he also, exercising his office as Chief Shepherd of the Church, asked the nations of the world never to use it destructively. This counsel was not taken. This moral voice was unheeded.”
Discussing arguments that use of the atomic bomb shortened the war and saved the lives of American fighting men, Msgr. Sheen declared: “That was precisely the argument Hitler used in bombing Holland.”
Link.
Thank you JohnH. I was unaware of that statement by Bishop Sheen. What I had seen was written around 1961 by him. Do you have a link to the actual text of of the remarks of Bishop Sheen on April 7, 1946? I can find nothing on the internet except what you linked to.
Donald, I don’t have access to any full texts. His remarks about Hiroshima turn up twice in the NYT archives from 1946, if you search there. It appears he was pounding this point home starting around when the bombing took place.
Also, if you look at the free archives of Time magazine online, you can see that condemnation of the atomic bombing of Japan was widespread.
See here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934449-2,00.html
and:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,792444,00.html
It seems that there was a fairly immediate condemnation of the bomb from clergy across the spectrum of the Catholic and Protestant worlds. So to suggest that the stances of people like Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, etc as “a sickening ahistorical bout of Monday Morning quarterbacking” seems rather ahistorical in itself. Their condemnation of the bombing follows in the footsteps of Catholics who were giving voice to this same condemnation in the months following the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Federal Council of Churches cited in the first linked time article was an uber liberal group and associated with the World Council of Churches. Its postition can hardly be taken as representatives of protestants in general in this country.
The second citation from Time is actually pretty nuanced if you read carefully the reactions:
” In one Gallup poll, 85% approved the use of the bomb against Japanese cities; and of the 49% who were against using poison gas, most explained that this was through their fear of retaliation—a possibility which, in the case of the bomb, they strangely overlooked.
The Osservatore Romano’s unauthorized outburst regretted that the creators of the bomb had not followed da Vinci’s example (with his plans for the submarine) and destroyed it, on the ground that mankind is too evil to be trusted with such power. Later, men “high in Vatican circles” spoke of “useless massacre,”deplored “the circumstances which have compelled” the use of the bomb. London’s Catholic Herald recalled Pope Pius’ “Christian distinction between legitimate and illegitimate weapons of war.”
The 34 U.S. clergymen (including John Haynes Holmes and A. J. Muste) who sent a protest and appeal to President Truman, while vigorously condemning the way in which the bomb was used, seemed to imply that its use might have been excusable to “save ourselves in an extremity of desperation.” They were “grateful for the scientific achievement” behind the bomb and wanted to see its power reserved “for constructive civilian uses.”
Bishop Oxnam and John Foster Dulles, after protesting the first use of the bomb and pleading that the U.S. “follow the ways of Christian statesmanship,” wrote warmly after the Japanese surrender of the American “capacity for self-restraint” and of the impressive “practical demonstration of the possibility of atomic energy bringing war to an end.”
The Christian Century, after flatly calling the use of the bomb “an American atrocity,” explained that this was because the editor did not believe that the “impetuous” manner of using it was “a military necessity.” The writer went on to say that military necessities are “beyond moral condemnation,” and that whatever is necessary is mandatory.”
Monday morning quarterbacking is precisely what most modern critics are engaged in. Most are almost completely ignorant of the historical record, fail to acknowledge that Truman’s failure to use the bomb would almost certainly have killed far more civilians, and frankly they could care less in any case. They are deeply unserious individuals who live in peace and security precisely by the hard decisions made by men like Truman.
They are deeply unserious individuals who live in peace and security precisely by the hard decisions made by men like Truman.
Unserious individuals such as Pope Paul VI?
If the consciousness of universal brotherhood truly penetrates into the hearts of men, will they still need to arm themselves to the point of becoming blind and fanatic killers of their brethren who in themselves are innocent, and of perpetrating, as a contribution to Peace, butchery of untold magnitude, as at Hiroshima on 6 August 1945?
Pope Paul VI, January 1976
Or maybe someone ignorant of the historical record like Pope John Paul II?
I bow my head as I recall the memory of thousands of men, women and children who lost their lives in that one terrible moment, or who for long years carried in their bodies and minds those seeds of death which inexorably pursued their process of destruction. The final balance of the human suffering that began here has not been fully drawn up, nor has the total human cost been tallied, especially when one sees what nuclear war has done — and could still do — to our ideas, our attitudes and our civilization.
—Pope John Paul II, Hiroshima, 1981
And, of course, the Catechism:
“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.
Thanks, but I think I’ll stay “unserious”.
John Paul II would not have likely lived to write those words but for the Allied war effort that destroyed the Nazi regime which was intent on exterminating most Poles. The first bomb would have been used on Berlin but for the Nazi surrender. The great tragedy of the attomic bomb program was that it could not have been completed earlier, say in 1943, and brought World War II to a rapid conclusion, sparing tens of millions of lives.
You are of course at liberty JohnH to be just as unserious as you have a mind to be.
The great tragedy of the attomic bomb program was that it could not have been completed earlier, say in 1943
The same year Venerable Pius XII warned of using atomic power in a destructive manner.
Sorry, but your position on this matter is just not in the Catholic mindset. Defend it if you must, but don’t try and pretend it’s Catholic.
and brought World War II to a rapid conclusion, sparing tens of millions of lives.
As Sheen said:
Discussing arguments that use of the atomic bomb shortened the war and saved the lives of American fighting men, Msgr. Sheen declared: “That was precisely the argument Hitler used in bombing Holland.”
Actually JohnH my viewpoint is completely Catholic on this issue, if one does not confuse Catholicism as something that came into being only in the last century.
Sheen’s statement was idiotic, and morally repulsive. Hitler was fighting for world conquest and to set the stage for his extermination of the Jews of Europe and other “undesirable” races. The comparison was unworthy of both his intelligence and his office.
Sheen’s statement was idiotic, and morally repulsive. Hitler was fighting for world conquest and to set the stage for his extermination of the Jews of Europe and other “undesirable” races. The comparison was unworthy of both his intelligence and his office.
I think Sheen’s point was that we should not stoop to the total warfare barbarism embraced by thugs such as Hitler.
Actually JohnH my viewpoint is completely Catholic on this issue, if one does not confuse Catholicism as something that came into being only in the last century.
Really? I’d really like to see how you can mount a defense of the 20th century atomic bomb using Catholic teaching from the previous centuries, when destruction on this scale was unimaginable.
JohnH, do you think it is permissible under Catholic teaching to punish the innocent and the guilty? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Donald, I think what you mean is “do you think it is permissible under Catholic teaching to punish the innocent as a means to accomplish good”. And the answer is no. That is a perversion of the principle of double effect.
Actually JohnH I meant what I said, but I will accept your answer. I often use this passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia to demonstrate how differently the Church used to view things:
“Whereas excommunication is exclusively a censure, intended to lead a guilty person back to repentance, an interdict, like suspension, may be imposed either as a censure or as a vindictive punishment. In both cases there must have been a grave crime; if the penalty has been inflicted for an indefinite period and with a view to making the guilty one amend his evil ways it is imposed as a censure; if, however, it is imposed for a definite time, and no reparation is demanded of the individuals at fault, it is inflicted as a punishment. Consequently the interdicts still in vogue in virtue of the Constitution “Apostolicae Sedis” and the Council of Trent are censures; whilst the interdict recently (1909) placed by Pius X on the town of Adria for fifteen days was a punishment. Strictly speaking, only the particular personal interdict is in all cases a perfect censure, because it alone affects definite persons, while the other interdicts do not affect the individuals except indirectly and inasmuch as they form part of a body or belong to the interdicted territory or place. That is also the reason why only particular personal interdicts, including the prohibition to enter a church suppose a personal fault. In all other cases, on the contrary, although a fault has been committed, and it is intended to punish the guilty persons or make them amend, the interdict may affect and does affect some who are innocent, because it is not aimed directly at the individual but at a moral body, e.g. a chapter, a monastery, or all the inhabitants of a district or a town. If a chapter incur an interdict (Const. “Apost. Sedis”, interd., n. 1) for appealing to a future general council, the canons who did not vote for the forbidden resolution are, notwithstanding, obliged to observe the interdict. And the general local interdict suppressing all the Divine offices in a town will evidently fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. Such interdicts are therefore inflicted for the faults of moral bodies, of public authorities as such, of a whole population, and not for the faults of private individuals.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08073a.htm
Now I assume that most modern Catholics would find this monstrous and I confess it gives me pause. Denying the sacraments to innocent parties simply because they are members of an erring group? I find that very hard to accept. However, such was taught by Mother Church for a very, very long time indeed. In regard to warfare, the same logic was used by popes time and time again in regard to sieges and other warfare measures that were entirely foreseeably going to have very adverse impact on innocent parties. The idea that it is intrinsically evil to deliberately harm the innocent is one that is embraced by the Catholc Church of today, but it was not so in the Catholic Church of yesteryear.
Placing a town under interdict (or even under seige) is not equivalent to the instant destruction of a city and its inhabitants.
Can you try again?
“Placing a town under interdict”
I agree JohnH, it is far worse. We are all going to die sooner or later, and bid farewell to this brief life. We depend upon the Church and her sacraments to escape damnation in the next life. The interdict deprived completely innocent people of these sacraments, the food of immortality.
In regard to sieges, the whole tactic rested upon the fact that the garrison and the civilian inhabitants would starve. It was also known that plagues were much more likely when populations were packed together in besieged cities. A general, or the pope commanding the general, would have to be a complete idiot not to realize that sieges would lead to a civilian death toll.
They are deeply unserious individuals who live in peace and security precisely by the hard decisions made by men like Truman.
I’m sure that when JP II was living in Communist Poland he thanked God nightly that Truman had nuked Hiroshima, thus providing him with such peace and security.
“I’m sure that when JP II was living in Communist Poland he thanked God nightly that Truman had nuked Hiroshima, thus providing him with such peace and security.”
I am sure that John Paul II thought as little as he possibly could about the connection between the massive bombing raids that blasted apart German cities and civilians and the sparing of his life by the destruction of the Nazi regime at a hideous cost in the lives of innocent civilians. Probably he also thought as little as possible about the balance of terror between the US and the USSR which spared Europe a third world war.
I am sure that John Paul II thought as little as he possibly could about the connection between the massive bombing raids that blasted apart German cities and civilians and thereby spared his life.
Maybe because there was no connection. JP II’s life wasn’t spared by those raids and neither were the lives of anyone else. On the other hand, hard decisions made by Truman did result in Poland being under Communist domination for the next several decades.
it is far worse… The interdict deprived completely innocent people of these sacraments, the food of immortality.
I’m not sure if you understand what the interdict meant historically. Generally, even under interdict certain sacraments were available to the dying or those about to engage in battle.
And if you can’t see the difference between a siege and a total destruction of a city, well… those are your moral blinkers, not mine.
Actually JohnH the interdict varied in severity. However, it was not uncommon for all sacraments to be denied, including the Last Rites.
In regard to sieges, of course you reject it out of hand. It is inconvenient to your argument and you apparently have no response.
Btw, during the 1940s the population of Berlin was around three million. What Don appears to be contemplating is mass murder on a horrendous scale. That he tries to justify the position as Catholic based on an analogy to interdiction is bizarre.
Donald, Extreme Unction was denied at times, but usually not confession (even by Innocent III, who popularized the idea of the interdict).
In regard to sieges, of course you reject it out of hand. It is inconvenient to your argument and you apparently have no response.
Actually, I do have a response above. A siege of a town or city is not the same as total destruction of a town or city. I think that’s pretty clear.
Actually JohnH my viewpoint is completely Catholic on this issue, if one does not confuse Catholicism as something that came into being only in the last century.
Don may have a point. I can’t find any Church statement from more than 100 years ago condemning the use of nuclear weapons. It’s almost like they didn’t exist back then or something.
On the other hand, I find this dismissal of any statements from the last 100 years somewhat odd. Has Don become a Sedevacantist without telling anybody?
“Maybe because there was no connection. JP II’s life wasn’t spared by those raids and neither were the lives of anyone else. On the other hand, hard decisions made by Truman did result in Poland being under Communist domination for the next several decades.”
BA, history is most definitely not your strong point. The degrading of the industrial war capacity of Germany was all important to the victory of the Allies. That you fail to acknowledge it, is not surprising.
In regard to Poland, the Red Army was in charge. It would have taken nukes to get them out, probably a few on Moscow. Oops, that would have been morally inconvient wouldn’t it?
In regard to the A-Bomb, that was the assumed target from the inception of the project. Take out Berlin, kill Hitler and the Nazi high command, and end the war. I think the tens of millions of people who died because this did not occur would agree with me that it was a great pity that it did not.
In regard to the interdict argument, it strips away the idea that the Catholic Church has always regarded the innocent as having an all-embracing immunity.
“A siege of a town or city is not the same as total destruction of a town or city. I think that’s pretty clear.”
More than a few sieges ended in the virtual destruction of the city or town. Is it the body count that is the difference, or is it a matter of intention between what was intended by besieging a medieval city and what was intended by bombing Hiroshima?
“Don may have a point. I can’t find any Church statement from more than 100 years ago condemning the use of nuclear weapons.”
Please BA, you are not nearly as intentionally humorous as your namesake. The world looked quite a bit different to popes when they were secular rulers. Popes and church councils are now free to condemn actions in warfare that they would not have dreamed of condemning in the past when popes had the responsibility of conducting wars themselves. Perhaps this is all to the good and is part of God’s plan, or perhaps it is merely a blip in the long history of the Church. However, to deny the difference is to betray a stunning ignorance of Church history.
In regard to the interdict argument, it strips away the idea that the Catholic Church has always regarded the innocent as having an all-embracing immunity.
Well, if you want to go down that road… Pope Innocent III, who popularized the interdict, also adopted rules at the Fourth Lateran Council that prohibited Jews from public office and compelled them to wear distinctive dress to set them apart from the general populace.
Quite true JohnH and other popes took an opposing view.
In regard to the Interdict if there have ever been any popes who have condemned past uses of it by other popes, I am unaware of such statements.
Quite true JohnH and other popes took an opposing view.
Can they be ignored? The other popes, I mean?
Can Innocent III be ignored? That most definitely is a problem for Catholics which is why such great emphasis is placed on ex cathedra statements. Of course popes since Vatican I have an unfair advantage over their predecessors in that they know the formula for making a papal pronouncement ex cathedra.
My point in regard to the interdict was to distinguish it from the example that you chose. If part of Catholic teaching or praxis is to go down the memory hole it is handy to at least have popes who have lined up on opposing sides.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at the article on War from the old Catholic Encyclopedia (which Don cites as an example of how Catholics used to think before they were weenified). Here is an excerpt:
Perhaps if Don wanted to know what the Church used to think about war he could have looked at the article titled War, rather than the one titled Interdict.
My point in regard to the interdict was to distinguish it from the example that you chose. If part of Catholic teaching or praxis is to go down the memory hole it is handy to at least have popes who have lined up on opposing sides.
Interesting. So you acknowledge that the Church’s position on issues may shift slightly over the ages (except in the 20th century, where the statements of the Popes on the use of nuclear weapons can be ignored starting with Pius XII).
Why is it that the Church’s teaching on war should be heeded up until the very century with the greatest rise in wholesale destruction the world has seen? Shouldn’t the opposite be true?
From your position, shouldn’t it have also been allowable for the Allies to operate concentration camps on the scale of the Nazi machine so long as the goal was the capitulation of the Axis powers?
Perhaps if Don wanted to know what the Church used to think about war he could have looked at the article titled War, rather than the one titled Interdict.
I cannot see how your excerpt provides a definitive refutation of Mr. McClarey’s argument.
“So you acknowledge that the Church’s position on issues may shift slightly over the ages (except in the 20th century, where the statements of the Popes on the use of nuclear weapons can be ignored starting with Pius XII).”
Actually that is precisely the opposite of my position. My position is that the whole panoply of Church teaching and praxis has to be taken into consideration on all issues. It doesn’t do to change Church teaching and then everyone is supposed to play a game of “Church teaching has always been this way and there has been no change in Church teaching.” If the Church is going to get in the habit of condemning the past for the purposes of the present, then our catechisms should all come with ring binders and perhaps our Bibles as well.
In regard to the concentration camp comment, that shows an inability to distinguish a military operation from simple murder. It is the difference between a pope besieging Milan and a pope simply rounding up all Milanese in Rome and putting them to the sword.
“except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force.”
I think the atomic bombings fit precisely into this passage.
In regard to Pius XII, the rules that he laid down for the use of nuclear weapons on September 30, 1954 strike me as common sense:
1. Such use must be “imposed by an evident and extremely grave injustice;”
2. Such injustice cannot be avoided without the use of nuclear weapons;
3. One should pursue diplomatic solutions that avoid or limit the use of such weapons;
4. There use must be indispensable to and in accordance with a nation’s defense needs;
5. That same use would be immoral if the destruction caused by the nuclear weapons were to result in harm so widespread as to be uncontrollable by man.
6. Unjustified uses should be severely punished as “crimes” under national and international law.