Thank you for saying this, Jimmy. Sometimes the simplest truths are the most easily overlooked. Keep up the good work.

I think that in addition to this there is another reason for so many to disagree with you. I’m putting on my sarcasm hat! It this attitude we have in this country that everything we do is good, holy, righteous, and ordained by God. We SAVED the Continental U. S. for “Indian” savages, and those rabble Mexicans. We were the SAVIORS of Europe. Then we became the SAVIORS of the South Seas. We were charged by God himself to wipe out the Japanese scourge. Which naturally led us to think that we could conquer all of Southeast Asia, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. When are we ever going to learn?

Jimmy, I think you rightly point out that this act was both immoral and regrettable. That being said, I must take issue with your use of the phrase “war crime”. This phrase has a specific legal meaning. In order to commit a war crime, we must prove MENS REA…or evil intent. And while it is certainly true that the US committed evil so that good may come, and thus committed an immoral act, that alone does not meet the burden of the phrase “war crime”. I think it is, at the very least arguable, that the US had good intent (a desire to save lives, which I believe it accomplished as well) in dropping the two bombs. Now that may not make it a moral act, but it certainly prevents it from being a war crime. If you would just remove the phrase “war crime”, which is loaded, and call it a “moral atrocity”, I could take no issue with anything you said. Blessings!

“Because the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil, it is never morally legitimate to target innocent civilians, even in wartime.” Absolutely agreed. But this begs the question of what it means to “target” innocent civilians. Do you mean to say that any military (or for that matter, police) action that will foreseeably result in the death of one or more innocent civilians cannot be undertaken, as intrinsically evil? (Such a position will of course cause evil-doers everywhere to use innocent civilians as human shields—as they do now, to be sure—but with far more impunity. Not, I will allow, that that fact bears on the moral question.) Or do you mean that only such actions _intended_ (solely or chiefly) to cause the death of one or more innocent civilians are intrinsically evil? (I certainly agree with that latter, btw .)

God bless you, Jimmy.  You have just blasphemed the holiest and most sacred moral heresy of Americans, left and right.  You will now be bombarded with scorn.  Fight the good fight.

The death of children and truly innocent adults, i.e. those opposed to the policies of their government, is to be regretted. But civilians, as such, are not intrinsically innocent. The large belligerent portion of the populace, not under duress from their government, producing and paying for the materials of war, and indeed providing the spiritual and moral support necessary for its continuance, is something other than innocent. Indeed, if I were to hire a hit man, give him the gun with which he will carry out his contract, and then assured him that his action was just, I would be guilty of dishonesty and murder.

An interesting historical look is here:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

It contains this quote:

“Pope Pius XII likewise condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that “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.” The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano commented in its August 7, 1945, issue: “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.”“

But civilians, as such, are not intrinsically innocent. The large belligerent portion of the populace, not under duress from their government, producing and paying for the materials of war, and indeed providing the spiritual and moral support necessary for its continuance, is something other than innocent.

I didn’t realize Osama bin Laden was posting here.  This was precisely his rationale for destroying the lives of 3000 World Trade Center employees whom he regarded as sustaining an occupying force on his native soil.  It’s becoming more and more common to see Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM] rejecting the teaching of their own Tradition and embracing the thinking of Muslim butchers.

That teaching, on the off chance anybody still cares, is:

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 “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.”110 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.

***

The eradication of the distinction between civilians and soldiers is one of the many evil developments that alleged faithful Catholics are now busily embracing and promoting, just like Radical Islamists.  Insane.

Jeff—exactly whom are you equating with hit men?
Political leaders, factory workers, wives and girlfriends who write encouraging letters to their loved ones at the front?
And who, during a war, is not under coercion to greater or lesser degree?

You are trying to define the concept of civilians out of existence in order to justify immoral acts, which the military did during WW2.  As someone previously pointed out this trend started with WT Sherman’s March to the Sea, intended to “break the will” of the rebel population.

I think one of the best examples of intrinsic and extrinsic evil is sex. Sex is good in marriage, but outside of marriage it is evil (extrinsic evil). Adultery is evil by the very act (intrinsic evil).

Jimmy pointed out in the Original Post that the arguments for the bomb are not the destruction of military targets or the destruction of war-making capabilities.  If the bombings were truly military in nature, that would be the argument, and the second bomb wouldn’t have been dropped on a non-military city.  When Sherman marched to the sea in the Civil War, he didn’t indiscriminately kill innocent Southerners: he destroyed their capabilities of waging the war.  He burnt fields, destroyed railroads, and smashed what few industries were in his way.  And while there were probably some intrinsically evil acts committed by those under his command, the entire focus of the campaign was to cripple the South…not utterly anihilate it.

Thanks so much for this follow-up, Jimmy, and I think Mark Shea’s comment is also spot on. I think the problem is that we Catholics sometimes get carried away with American political ideology, which is not always compatible with Catholic social and moral teaching. I also think we really have to be careful about applying the principle of double effect in these situations. I wonder, personally, if the American people’s desire to continue to believe we were a righteous nation despite the evident horror of the bombings led some to embrace an ends justify the means mentality… But this can never be accepted by Catholics. And it seems to me that if we have the heart of Christ, we will be deeply disturbed by such loss of life no matter what justifications are made….

“Pope Pius XII likewise condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that “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.””

I would like to actually read Pius XII’s condemnation of the bombings.  I have never seen it, and it is a little suspicious that the author neither quotes, nor even provides a citation to, the alleged condemnation.

It is also strange that Curtis LeMay’s opposition to the use of the bombs is quoted, since his idea was to use the B-29 fleet to bomb Japan back into the Stone Age.  Dropping bombs on civilians was not a problem for him; he just wanted to use many small ones instead of two big ones.

Thank you Mr Atkin for the two articles and to all the commentators.  My head and heart are working overtime!

Carl F. Hostetter above and on the other thread raises for me the most perplexing of questions: That of the use of truly innocent people as shields by a group of murderers against a military (or police) force that is constrained from intentionally targeting and killing the innocent.  Christina on the other thread raised this point also.  It seems to me not an immoral action to try to avoid killing the innocent but also at the same time knowing that killing them is very likely, almost to the point of certainty/inevitability.  Mr Atkin, would you not make a moral distinction between inevitable and intentional?

Mr Akins, the Japanese were the ones targeting innocent civilians in their bloodthristy march toward empire. Our side did its best not to harm civilians. You and Shea are impractical ideologes with no real experiance in war. Why don’t you and Mark go to that reunion of that bomber group? you might start learning how wrong and misinformed yo are.

“This does not deal with all the subjects that have been brought up in the combox. It does not, for example, go into cases where—by the law of double-effect—civilian casualties can be tolerated for a proportionate reason. But it does show the fundamental conflict between Catholic morality and the position of those trying to justify the targeting of civilians due the exigencies of wartime or as the “lesser evil” compared to what would otherwise happen.”

Do the leaflets that Carl referred to raise the double-effect concept with regard to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If Truman’s actual motive was to kill as many Japanese as possible, why didn’t he drop the bombs on Tokyo?  I do not believe that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or the initial target of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, were the three largest cities in Japan.

Since the bombs were the wrong thing to do, what should President Truman have done?

“”“You and Shea are impractical ideologes… “”“

<sarcasm>Doesn’t Christianity always seem to get in the way?  Why was Christ so impractical?  Then again, Christ didn’t fight a war so maybe he isn’t qualified to preach on this.  Such a bother!</sarcasm>

Clearly, then, Dwight Eisenhower and Chester Nimitz were also, “impractical ideologes with no real experiance in war”. Both of them condemned the dropping of the atomic bombs on civilian targets. Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, actually said of the decision to drop the bomb that “I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” Which suggests that the American military academies had been teaching their future officers just war doctrine.

It is true that the American military (except for the Army Air Corps) was largely salutary in its efforts to avoid civilian casualties in prosecuting the war - to the surprised relief of civilian populations used to marauding armies with a different war-fighting ethic. That still does not render moral the decision to target the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Just a small theological point.

Mr. Akin writes: “In this passage, John Paul II walks right up to the edge of invoking papal infallibility. He is using the most solemn form of papal teaching shy of invoking infallibility…”

On the contrary, it would seem that this passage is in fact an ex cathedra teaching, and hence infallible, according to the definition of papal infallibility of Vatican I.

Jimmy, you conclude this post with the statement that “Killing, attempting to kill, or threatening to kill the innocent can never be justified.” Focusing specifically on the clause “killing ... the innocent can never be justified”, it’s hard for me to see how any action of modern, mechanized warfare could ever not be immoral, since in virtually all such actions of a non-trivial scope _some_ innocent person is bound to die (even though unintended). As such, it is difficult for me to see how any Catholic could, morally, be a member of the armed services in time of war, since they would be contributing materially to immoral actions. But is that really what the Catholic Church teaches? (I take this opportunity to note that I absolutely aver everything that the Catholic Church teaches, and that I absolutely reject the many consequentialist arguments used in the various threads surrounding this topic. I have no interest in avoiding or compromising Truth, and accept all that the Church teaches as Truth. I am only trying to understand whether history and the teaching of the Catholic Church really do support your conclusion about the immorality of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how the teachings of the Catholic Church do or would apply to other conflicts, past and future.)

I should specify that I reject the consequentialist arguments _as irrelevant to Catholic teaching_, and thus to your own argument. I certainly understand the dilemma that they present to those tasked with executing a war, and/or to those not feeling bound by the authority of the teaching of the Catholic Church on moral matters.

OPEN INVITATION TO JIMMY AKIN & MARK SHEA:

You are hereby cordially invited to attend the Annual Reunion of the 58TH BOMB WING, 2OTH AIR FORCE on September 22-29, 2010 in Windsor Locks, CT. at the New England Air Museum. Although not directly involved in dropping the atomic bombs (that was the 509th Bomb Group) these men heroically flew the B-29 Flying Superfort in fire-bombing raids over Japan. According to your logic, they also participated in “war crimes”, and have the right to defend their actions against your repeated public accusations. Will you have the decency to attend and allow these remaining few men to defend their honor, and those of their deceased fellow crewmates? Will you tell them to their face that they participated in war crimes and or in effect war criminals?

http://www.neam.org/58th/reunion.asp

“I am only trying to understand whether history and the teaching of the Catholic Church really do support your conclusion about the immorality of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how the teachings of the Catholic Church do or would apply to other conflicts, past and future.”

Here is another thought on the leaflets Carl referred to: If the leaflets had had their desired effect, and the civilian populations had largely evacuated from the cities, would the dropping of the bombs still have been war crimes?

Good article, Mr. Akin. Good questions, Mr. Hostetter.

I’d also like to ask for your thoughts on how (if at all) the following bears on this question. In CCC 2309 <http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm>, after listing what it calls “the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine”, the CCC states that: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” Were Truman and his staff included among “those who have responsibility for the common good”? If so, must we as Catholics not give great weight to their “prudential judgment” as to the “moral legitimacy” of the bombings? (I hasten to note that I do not think this clause means we must remain silent as to their prudential judgment and determination of moral legitimacy! Certainly we are free to evaluate, question, and disagree with both. But I do think we are enjoined to study the matter of their deliberations, and of the context and circumstances surrounding them, very, very carefully, and to be fully circumspect in faulting their judgment, giving it full benefit of any doubt.)

We Catholics (myself included), need to learn to think with the mind of the Church.  Sometimes I get mixed up, and think that because conservatives are against abortion, same sex marriage etc… that they are always right.  I thought that all the way until my last years of college when I finally started to read to the great social encyclicals of the Church, ( a friend suggested I read them, she knew I always fought for the conservative ideology and wasn’t always right), so reading those has brought me closer to the truth, although I admit if I don’t stop and think, I sometimes revert to default staunch conservative on all issues.  I think this is partly due to an overreaction to the left.  They generally make me so mad, I think the exact opposite is the correct position, the correct position is really the Church’s.  GK Chesterton also serves as a good reset to my default settings.  Keep up the good work Jimmy, and Mark Shea.

No matter what is said on this topic, or how clearly it is written, there will always be those who try to find an exception or “legal loophole” around the most basic of moral precepts. They do this knowing full well that their arguments are glorified sophistry, even if they don’t admit it to themselves, and are used as an excuse to give free reign to their evil impulses. 

Excellent article, to be sure; but the more precise you make it, the more certain people will begin debating the definition of “is.”

Hey, all—please do ignore the website I carelessly linked to above.  While I think the direct quotes from historical documents are accurate (probably including the L’Osservatore Romano quote), the group are Holocaust Revisionists and thus not a trustworthy site.

However, I do recommend the documentary “The Fog of War” for a look at the firebombings of Tokyo and the principles involved in modern warfare.

@Thomas

I hear this a lot, but I really think that there is value in honest people debating definitions.  I suppose the “honest” qualifier is key. 

The torture debate is one where this frequently comes to a head, My understanding of the same Christian Moral Principals Mark Shea uses puts me in a different position than he takes, though we both are trying our best to honestly understand what the Church means.  But perhaps I shouldn’t open that can of worms…

Red Beard, God is a man of war. The Old Testament shows Christ pre-incarnate had lots of experiance in warfare. Oh, he targeted the Caananite and Amalakite civilian poplation in two of those wars.

Rich, Bill, Ike, and Chet were not in charge of invading Japan. The Japanese were prepared to make everyone, even children, fight to the death. We would have been fighting them for years if we didn’t use the bombs. As for Japan sueing for peace, they were only trying to buy time to continue the war. The Jap military wanted to fight to the bitter end.

Hey Jimmy and Mark, are yo accepting that invitation that the 58th Bomb Wing has extended to you, or are you and Mark going to fight from a distance?

Japan invaded US territory—both Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and the Philippines, which were granted their independence on July 4, 1946—in December 1941.  And the US atirmen did risk their lives to drop leaflets in order to warn the Japanese beforehand.
And you might want to read sections 2265 and 2309 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Imprimi Potest Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).
And before the 2004 US elections Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the US bishops to remind them that”...it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capitla punishment.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, bu tnot however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
You self-righteous pacifists might want to write to Benedict XVI to demand that he excommunicate that Cardinal Ratzinger, but I doubt that you’ll have much luck.  Or you might want to insist that since Germany never attacked us the fire-bombing of Dresden was worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Steve Dalton - no way, they are either running a conference on the horrendous evil USA has brought into the world (only the past generations - their generation knows best ) or they are working on the latest liturgical dance moves in preparation for the reform of the reform of the reform. God bless you for your service and all those that value freedom. your sacrifice is appreciated by this catholic.

Catechism 2314.

“Roma locuta est. Causa finita est.”

Anyone who thinks that “Fuquay Steve’s” (Steve Fuquay’s?) characterization accurately describes either Jimmy Akin’s or Mark Shea’s positions and activities is in fact not at all familiar with their writings. (Certainly neither is _at all_ supportive of liturgical dance!)

CCC 2314 states (in part): “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.” I absolutely aver this statement. What “non finita est”, to my mind at least, is whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in fact were acts of war “directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”. The facts I have cited and the questions I have posed are designed specifically to ask this question.

no way, they are either running a conference on the horrendous evil USA has brought into the world (only the past generations - their generation knows best ) or they are working on the latest liturgical dance moves in preparation for the reform of the reform of the reform.

In the words of Mr. Spock, “Faaaaascinating.”  Uphold the clear and obvious teaching of Holy Mother Church as articulated for centuries, and in response, you get a reactionary dissenter from that teaching defending mass murder with lies about love for pacifism and liturgical dance.  We are nearing the moment where neocon ideological worship of Caesar and right wing heretical Catholicism achieves a complete fusion, just as on the Left worship of Caesar (in the person of Obama) and the mass murder of abortion has achieved almost complete fusion (and defended it with lies about hatred for homosexuals and freedom).  Really, the lovers of mass murder by nukes and abortion should get a room.  You two have so much more in common than you know.

Is the closing of a watertight door in a sinking ship [thus condemning to death by drowning those innocent people unfortunately trapped behind it but saving the passengers on the other side of the door] always morally evil and never licit?

My grandfather died in WWII. I have a deep and passionate love for my country, and I am proud to be an American, and consider myself a conservative politically. Our deepest values are vital to the spread of Democracy. I am _not_ a pacifist. But before all of this, I am a Roman Catholic, and the fact is that we were wrong to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons in order to end the war. Once I read a book that pointed out that, according to Catholic moral theology, it would not be licit to do evil in order to save the universe. It does not matter how many lives we were supposed to save, it was wrong, it was a mortal sin. My question is for you, Iran is trying to get an atomic weapon. Does this mean that we get to - oh boy! - drop a nuke on them because they are “fanatical”? I continuously hear conservatives claim that the Japanese would have “fought to the death” - but if they really were that fanatical - why did they surrender after two nukes? Indeed, conservatives are acting like Our Dear Leader’s administration with this talk of ‘Lives saved’. Is that kinda like a “job saved”? Consequentialism is heresy.

@Fuquay Steve

“”“or they are working on the latest liturgical dance moves in preparation for the reform of the reform of the reform. “”“

Realy, Fuquay, you don’t know your audience or subjects on this one.

Mark : Thanks for the insult, your judgement of me and my beliefs just shows how far the ever-present ‘virtue of tolerance’ goes. Well done, good and faithful servant (of the present generation). Please let’s go back to the Boston Tea Party - was that a war crime? Let’s debate anything from the past and condemn it from the safety of our air-conditioned offices/home. It makes a lot of sense to condemn the warriors that faced evil bayonet to bayonet in order to liberate millions. If you want to dig up Truman and have a war crimes trial go ahead, it’ll show how stupid this topic is. Guess what, God judged Truman already. Was it not harsh enough for you?  What was His judgement? You have the ability to tell us so please, reveal what it should have been. Pious egoist.

@Carl F. Hostetter

“”“to my mind at least, is whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in fact were acts of war “directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”. The facts I have cited and the questions I have posed are designed specifically to ask this question.”“”

Which is the only honest way a Catholic can support the action, so thank you for being the reasonable voice.  It is very refreshing!  Everyone else seems to be calling names, shouting, or committing logical fallacies.

@Jon White

Nope, closing the door is a morally neutral act that has known good and known bad effects.  The bad effects are neither willed, nor avoidable and are the known good effects are important enough to allow the act itself to be licit.  The means are neutral, so the act can be good or bad depending upon the intent and the circumstances. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Principal of Double Effect - the wikipedia page really isn’t that bad on this topic)

Contrast that with abortion, you have an immoral act with known bad and perhaps known good consequences (you might actually save 1 life by murdering another).  No matter how good the consequences may be, you cannot commit an immoral act. The means are bad, so the act can be nothing but bad.

Shutting a door is neutral, giving chemotherapy is neutral, dropping a bomb on a military target in a just war is neutral, dropping a bomb specifically against the innocents in a just war is bad.

Isn’t it funny how the responses to the Church’s clear teaching that consequentialism is incompatible with Christianity is the assertion that the ends justify the means and then attacking the messenger? 

Talk about missing the point!

Here’s a hint: The Catholic Church says that consequentialism is bad.  You can feel free to say that consequentialism is good, and put yourself in opposition to the Church, but just shouting that “the ends justify the means” is not a logical answer to the Church’s position.

Jimmy, when God destroyed everyone on earth except for Noah and his family, did he commit evil?  Was his intent evil?  When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was his intent evil? Was his act evil?

Fuqay, thanks, but I never served in the military. My late father did, and along with you, I thank him for his service to our country dring WII.

Fuquay:

I didn’t insult your beliefs.  I made the factual statement that you were dissenting from the teaching of the Church and that you were telling lies about Jimmy and I as you did it.  Personal discomfort about having those dissenting statement and lies exposed on your part does not constitute an insult on my part.  Sorry, dude, but the consequentialist logic you advocate for murdering innocent men, women and children is indistinguishable from the consequentialist logic Catholics for a Free Choice uses to advocate for murdering innocent babies.  The silly personal insults and lies about pacifism and liturgical dance are like the silly insults and lies about “homophobia” and “hating freedom” that Lefties use.  Seriously, you guys should get a room.  You have so much to learn from each other.

@Paul

He’s God, by definition, He is all goodness.  The rest of us aren’t, so our actions are worth examining. 

If I kill an innocent (not being God) I am taking away life, which is not mine and which I am not the author of.  If God kills an innocent, He is taking back what He gave.  He is the author of the story so He gets to decide how the story goes.  Lucky for us, He is also all goodness and He loves us all so every act He makes, know matter how hard it is for us to understand, is the best act (and the best act for us).

No, Paul, God did not do evil in those cases. All of existence at every moment is an entirely gratuitous act of God, and God is the author of all our lives. He has every right to terminate our lives, and our existence, and even all of existence, at any moment. (“Moment” of course being a construct of time-bound human perception, not a phenomenon present to God’s timeless being and perspective.)

Jimmy, when God destroyed everyone on earth except for Noah and his family, did he commit evil?  Was his intent evil?  When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was his intent evil? Was his act evil?

This is what is known as “desperately seeking a way to justify evil”.  Your question boils down to an attempt to say that the Church is wrong to condemn murder.  Not a sparrow falls without God’s involvement.  Every death that occurs, does so because God (who alone has the right to judge) deems it to be permissible.  That does not meant that we can assume the powers of God.  So get to the point.  You are attempting to say that if God wills human beings to die, we may play God and murder with impunity.

Stop blaspheming.  Stop trying to make nonsense of the clear teaching of the Church and start trying to make sense of it.  Either that, or just say clearly, “I have no king but Caesar.”

Jimmy,

Amen! Amen! Amen! Thank you for posting this in such a concise, logical manner. :)

Red_Beard, you sure make a lot of assumptions.  How do you know those assumptions are correct?  Just remember, if God didn’t have a purpose for something or someone he would not have created it or them.  Therefore what purpose does evil serve?

Jimmy, you are living in a fantasy world. Your statement “No, You Can’t Deliberately Kill Innocent People (Sorry!)” is incorrect.  It is being done every day. And God allows it to continue.  So dropping the A bomb on two cities of Japan was just another day in God’s plan.

God did not create evil. He created beings with free will, which leads to the _possibility_ (not the _necessity_) of evil, which is always and everywhere the direct product of a free agency choosing to do evil, not of God’s will. As Catholics we believe in God’s providence, which means that we believe that God will bring things about such that even evil acts will ultimately work for good (in ways that we perhaps will not be able to appreciate until all is brought to fruition, beyond this world and life)—and yet remain evil.

Mr. Akin:  You write and I concur the following:
“Because the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil, it is never morally legitimate to target innocent civilians, even in wartime. It does not matter what authority (civilian or military) has recommended or ordered the action—even if he be the American president or the master of the world. It does not matter whether innocent people on your side will die as a result. They are absolutely equal to the innocent on the other side and cannot be preferred.”
I am Native American, Choctaw Indian raised on a Reservation.  (This makes my statement “non-influenced” outsiders).  We, DO NOT believe in abortion, euthanasia, and here is the crux of my point-“capital punishment”.
I’m a very humble person; (not shy by any stretch of the imagination but just an introvert in the Clinical since; live far below my financial means (850 sq.ft. home); to the chagrin of others become easily embarrassed even when people compliment me.  I’m well educated with four undergrad degrees and two Masters-theology & psychology.  I call myself “A ‘non-convert/Convert’”.  By that, I mean I’ve always believed even as a Protestant that the Catholic Church is the Universal Church, and accept the Seven Tenants/Doctrines of Faith:  (1) Eucharist; (2) Contraception; (3) Sanctity of Life; (4) Papal Infallibility; (5) Premarital Sex; (6) Immaculate Conception; and, (7) Holy Orders.  (Sadly, most cradle Catholics can name the seven and don’t accept All of them).
I’ve read/studied the CCC twice; taken more classes on Canon Law than I care to elaborate on; translated the Bible three different times from it’s original language; have read ALL Papal Encyclicals; and, even though I did NOT have to was mandate by the Holy Spirit to submit and go through RCIA twice.  What a blessing it was!!! 
Therefore, when I hear that Catholic does NOT believes in Capital Punishment “with exception”, that means-the Catholic Church BELIEVES in Capital Punishment!
It is the same argument Protestants as well as Most Cradle Catholics have regarding abortion…“except under certain circumstances”.  That statement intrinsically means, “They DO believe in abortion”.  It even goes deeper than that on both accounts:  “they are playing God”.  By asserting, such a statement based on your own words Capital Punishment is “extrinsically evil”.
I ask and pray that all of you who have read my diatribe, and are offended to please forgive me, and to pray for me.  I do not mean to come across as crass; pompous; arrogant; and certainly narcissistic. 
A Servant of Christ,
Rodney

Carl, you are giving me a lot of speculation.  How about some really sound answers.  Apparently you do not know or understand why evil is allowed to exist.

Paul, my answer was a summary of my understanding of Catholic teaching on the question your raised, based on many years of reading and thinking about the matter. If you’re going to dismiss such answers to your questions as “speculation”, I have to wonder why you bother asking them? (Especially, why you bother asking them _here_.)

Carl, how many years of reading and thinking about the matter?

Mm, 30 or so.

To Mark Shea and Carl, if evil didn’t exist, how could you choose?

Huh?

I think your question is exactly backwards. Evil “exists” (I would not myself use that term, mind, except as a shorthand for “is possible within creation”) _because_ there are agents (including men and angels) to which God has given free will. That does not in any way mean that God _wills_ that evil acts be committed, nor does it mean that evil is a _necessity_ of God’s grant of free will, since free agents do not _have_ to choose to do evil.

For those seeking official documentation on the Church’s teaching on the matter at hand, check out Dave Armstrong’s “Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Vatican II, the CCC, & US Bishops on the Morality of Nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki”: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/popes-pius-xii-paul-vi-john-paul-ii.html. Mr. Akin and Mr. Shea, keep up the good work against consequentialism.

steve dalton writes:

“Hey Jimmy and Mark, are yo accepting that invitation that the 58th Bomb Wing has extended to you, or are you and Mark going to fight from a distance?”

Let me get this straight. On the basis of an “invitation” from a person who has no obvious connection with said group, and with no invitation to Mark and me on the page linked—or any mention of us at all—we’re supposed to drop what we’re doing at the time of the meeting, take time off from work, pay for plane tickets to get to the event and hotel rooms while we’re there, then gatecrash the event, force our way on stage, commandeer the microphone, and start lecturing the attendees about their moral faults—or somehow we lack the courage of our convictions or lack manliness or are somehow otherwise morally inferior?

Please. Let’s try to set aside such deeply unserious proposals. The junior high, “I double dog dare you!” quality of this line of discussion is absurd.

Let me spell it out for you Mark.  Evil exists so you and others can choose between God and Satan.  If Satan did not exist then how could you choose God. If you have the ability to choose between two good and evil, They both must exist so you can make a choice.  It is not hard to understand, very simple.  You must choose one or the other, life(God/Christ) or death(Satan).

That’s the heresy of dualism, Paul. Moreover, if evil “exists” so as to permit a choice between God and Satan, then what did Satan choose between when he fell? (The answer is: he chose between God and _himself_. Which means that all that is needed for evil to be _possible_—though still not _necessary_—is a self that is not God, and free will. Which brings us right back to my previous post.)

” I continuously hear conservatives claim that the Japanese would have “fought to the death” - but if they really were that fanatical - why did they surrender after two nukes?”

In his autobiography, the legendary Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa explains how the Japanese people were instructed that when the U.S. invasion came, they were to march to the sea and fling themselves on the advancing troops in the “honorable death of the hundred million.” Despite Kurosawa’s burning hatred for the Japanese militarists, he admits that he probably would have gone.

Elizabeth Anscombe’s paper War and Murder
http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Anscombe.pdf
rationally summarizes the Catholic position and disentangles double think about double effect.
Hint: the Pope and Jimmy agree with her.

Carl, do you really believe that God created Satan without knowing how he was going to end up.  He created Satan for a specific purpose which he is fulfilling.  God didn’t make this world complicated as a lot of people feel it is. You either choose God/Christ or death, simple.  But you must have two items to choose between.  That is a fact.

I don’t think you can give a reasonable reading to GAUDIUM ET SPES 80 § 2 <u> http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html</u> without concluding, as I have, that Messrs. Akins and Shea are right. A loyal son of the Church has to bend his will to Her teaching and, in my case, repent of a murderous attitude.

Jimmy, maybe that person has no connention to the group, but if you and Mark really have the courage of your convictions, go defend your ivory tower fantasies in front of some vets that gave you a safer world to live in. Don’t count on any book sales at the event, for some reason, i don’t think anyone would really want your books. Yep, yo and Shea are brave behind a key board, chicken in real life.

Brian, does anyone actually give evidence that the people would have done this? A Japanese filmmakers book doesn’t constitute proof in my book… but even if it is true, and they would have done it, it doesn’t justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese. Consequentialism is just like sola scriptura or justification by faith alone - its heresy. And like all heresy, it is destructive.

Where did I ever say anything like that, Paul? Of course God knew how Satan was “going to end up”—God knows everything. But that only means that He _allowed_ Satan to do so, not that He _willed_ Satan to do so. Which makes perfect sense, since He gave Satan free will, just like we have. Nor does that mean that God had no purpose in doing so. Of course He had (and has) a purpose in all things. And I specifically said that Satan chose between “two items”: namely, God and himself.

Steve Dalton:

It’s clarifying to hear you call the teaching of the Church “ivory tower fantasy”.  It’s also amusing that you, sitting there at your keyboard in your mom’s basement, imagine that you are being a courageous realist as you fantasize about justifications for murdering innocent people.

You remind me of this guy, pretending to be a real soldier.  Be sure and read the takedown of our Fantasy Realist in the comboxes, written by real soldiers.  The confusion of brutality with courage is par for the course for the laptop bombardier who loves to imagine that somewhere or other, he bravely faced evil instead of making excuses for committing it.

Paul:

Thanks for you input.  Good does not depend on evil to exist.  Evil, however, does depend on good to exist.  The fact that we possess the power to choose is true, but not particularly germane to this thread.  Thanks for playing.

Peter, Japanese people _did_ do that during WWII, on other islands, as Allied forces moved into their areas.

Carl and Mark, don’t get your feathers ruffled.  I hope you both do realize that mankind will continue to commit worst acts than the US dropping two A bomb on Japan.  Revelations already tells us what will be coming down the pike.  We are all human and have our flaws.  Killing for any reason is wrong, but due to our fear of dying we will kill to preserve our life and those we love.  But God will forgive us if we are truly sorry and seek repentance through Jesus “The Christ”.  We all get judged at the Last Day, even Satan.  Nice chatting with you all.  I have to go now.

Feathers unruffled here, Paul. And of course both Mark and I realize that “mankind will continue to commit worse acts than the US dropping two A bombs on Japan”. That fact though has no bearing on the morality (or lack thereof) of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is the topic of this article. And while Mark has clearly decided on the morality of it, I in fact have not. Which is why I’ve been asking the questions and making the observations that I have.

So you believe it was RIGHT for the Japanese Empire to attack and murder millions of innocent people in China, Burna, Malaysia, the Philippines, America, etc; enslave and rape over 400,000 Korean, Chinese, and Filipina “comfort girls”; starve, brutalize, and murder both Allied POWs and civilians in concentration camps across Asia??

This is RIGHT, but it is WRONG to stop such atrocities?

Clearly, if you see a child being abused or an elderly woman being beaten and mugged, you stand aside.  After all, you wouldn’t want to be GUILTY of stopping evil. 

Me, I’m with the partisans and soldiers who defied evil, and chose to do anything necessary to stop it.

I hasten to note that my doubt is only as to whether Catholic teaching, in conjunction with history, actually does render the particular bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki immoral. I do not in any way doubt the truth and validity of Catholic teaching itself.

Me, I’m with the partisans and soldiers who defied evil, and chose to do anything necessary to stop it.

You certainly are.  And though the “anything necessary” was itself gravely and intrinsically evil, you don’t care.  You have no King but Caesar.  Thanks for that able exposition of the favorite moral heresy of Americans.

Even if they did at other islands, you can’t just assume that all Japanese people would have done that, and once again, deliberately killing innocents is never justified. When I was in fourth grade, I read a book called “Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes”, about a girl who came down with Leukemia thanks to our “heroic act”. Was a young Sadako (she is fictional, of course), a schoolgirl, a legitimate military target? She had the same rights to her life that any American 4th grader did. And the Atomic bomb was dropped specifically to kill girls like her. Or do you a-bomb apologists believe that somehow American children are the only ones who have rights and the only ones we should care about? The atomic bomb was dropped to kill not just able bodied adult males - it was dropped to kill defenseless women and children. Or is the outstanding moral theologian Osama bin Laden posting here? The only ivory tower moralists here are those who do not realize that God loves people of every nation, and that if you are not on my side, you can be massacred at the whim of our side.

Peter, you asked for evidence, and all I did is provide some (certainly not all that exists, mind you). If you’re going to dismiss evidence as having no valid implications for projecting future behavior, why did you ask for it in the first place? You also write as though I disagreed that “deliberately killing innocents is never justified”. I most certainly do not, so long as we are agreed on what is meant by “deliberately killing” (establishment of which has been the purpose of my participation in this thread). The rest of your post is simply wildly off base, at least as it pertains to me.

I agree with everything that’s been said about the iniquity of dropping bombs on innocent Japanese civilians. But I am extremely grateful that I have never been in the position of balancing the lives of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen entrusted to my care against the lives of hundreds of thousands of enemy civilians.

Mr Shea, I own my own home. My father served in the US Navy as a machinist mate in the Pacific during WWII. The civilians in those cities were part of the Jap war effort. They were warned to get out of Dogde by or armed forces before the bombs dropped. They foolishly obeyed t5heir fanatical leaders and paid the price.

Jimmy and Mark, Let’s do an article about woman’s ordination. That’s a favorite of your editors and readers and we can agree that war is evil and destroys souls. We can also agree that prayers are needed so that we are never in that situation again.

The fact is - even giving the notion that there would have been civilians who fought to the death - when you think about the various innocent children and others who were killed in the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it shows why these were colossal and criminal mistakes. Young Japanese children were chosen to be killed - they were the targets. The bombs were not dropped on military targets. (And just because a city is involved in the war effort, it does not make everybody in it a legitimate military target). The children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims of a horrific American war crime.

Kathleen, bravo! You speak the truth to idiocy! Don’t let Shea’s put down get you down. He’s just an ivory tower ideologue who has never had to test his ideas in the real world. He’s great behind a keyboard or a speaker platform, but he woldn’t last a minute on a battlefield confronting real in yor face evil.

If so, Peter, if the fact that innocents _were_ killed in the bombings is sufficient in itself to condemn it as immoral, then I come back to the observation and question I posted earlier (which I quote here): “It’s hard for me to see how any action of modern, mechanized warfare could ever not be immoral, since in virtually all such actions of a non-trivial scope _some_ innocent person is bound to die (even though unintended). As such, it is difficult for me to see how any Catholic could, morally, be a member of the armed services in time of war, since they would be contributing materially to immoral actions. But is that really what the Catholic Church teaches?”

@Rodney,

As I understand it, you are right about the Church’s position on Capital Punishment.  The Church holds that a state can legitimately execute criminals.  The act itself is not intrinsically unjust (or immoral), though any particular act may be extrinsically unjust.  The reasoning is that, though it is always and in every case immoral (intrinsically immoral) to intentionally kill an innocent, there are legitimate cases for intentionally killing the guilty.

So abortion, euthanasia, etc. are intrinsically immoral.  Capital punishment, war, violence are not (though any particular instance may be immoral based on circumstances)

@Carl F. Hostetter

I just want to say that I admire your tenacity, consistency, and honesty.  It must be difficult with people piling on.

Peter also writes: “The bombs were not dropped on military targets. (And just because a city is involved in the war effort, it does not make everybody in it a legitimate military target).” The first sentence is flatly false. The second is arguable, depending on the definition of “legitimate” in this context. But deciding that is really the same as deciding the other questions I’ve put in these comments, so you’ve said nothing knew.

“Furthermore, to threaten to do something intrinsically evil is itself intrinsically evil, and to threaten—by words or deeds—to target civilians is intrinsically evil and cannot be done under any circumstances. You cannot hold innocents as hostages to another goal, however noble or lofty it may be.”

Thank you for including this statement, Jimmy. This is definitely the genuine teaching of the Church, and the U.S. Bishops. (Anyone who doubts it can check over here:

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/TheChallengeofPeace.pdf

The implications of this teaching for how we can appropriately pursue nuclear deterrence, could reasonably fill a whole book.

Or at least hundreds of blog comments! ;)

“Brian, does anyone actually give evidence that the people would have done this? A Japanese filmmakers book doesn’t constitute proof in my book… but even if it is true, and they would have done it, it doesn’t justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese. Consequentialism is just like sola scriptura or justification by faith alone - its heresy. And like all heresy, it is destructive.”

There can be no dispute that the Japanese were preparing to fight to the death.  Would all the civilians have strapped on their explosives and rolled under American tanks as they were trained to do?  Maybe not, but I do not think military planners could count on that.

My point is, you can build a double effect justification for all the events that would have occurred in an invasion of Japan.  However, if you end up with millions of dead civilians, is that really the result you want?

“”“If so, Peter, if the fact that innocents _were_ killed in the bombings is sufficient in itself to condemn it as immoral”“”

It isn’t sufficient.  The problem isn’t the fact that innocents were killed (an end of the act), there are circumstances where the principal of double effect applies.  Instead, the contention is that the act itself (the means of the act) is an attack against innocents.  Innocents dying isn’t the problem.  Innocents being directly killed is the problem.  There is a subtle yet critical distinction.

This is utter nonsense. No Commander in Chief has the moral right to sacrifice the lives of thousands of his soldiers because he has qualms about a bombing raid. The invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath. In Manilla the Japanese Marines ignored the command of General Yamashitata withdraw and declare it an open city. They wantonly killed 100,000 civilians for no military purpose. This would have been small potatoes to what would have happened on the main islands. In Saipan Japanese mothers jumped off cliffs holding their babies rather than surrender; the same mass hysteria would have prevailed in Japan. After Nagasaki there was a a coup attempt by Junior Officers to block the surrender. The Japanese Army was one of the cruelest in recorded history. The occupation of China was unspeakable. I am glad that my Uncles Gerry, Frank and Anthony came home alive rather than die in an invasion force. A Philippine native after experiencing Japanese occupation said of the bombing,“They got off easy.” We did what had to be done. End of story.

And my question that still has not been answered:  If the warning leaflets had had their intended effect, and the vast majority of the civilians had evacuated the cities, would the bombings still have been war crimes?

“To threaten—by words or deeds—to target civilians is intrinsically evil”. Again, though, the question at issue is whether that is in fact what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is the notion that the US “targeted” civilians consistent with dropping millions of leaflets, and issuing radio broadcasts every 19 mins., urging all civilians to evacuate? Does the latter fact, which has not yet been mentioned by Jimmy in either of his two blog posts, have _no_ bearing on this determination? If not, why not?

“Innocents dying isn’t the problem.  Innocents being directly killed is the problem.  There is a subtle yet critical distinction.” I don’t see anything subtle about it (and it certainly is a critical distinction!); but neither is this the distinction I am drawing (or questioning). The distinction at issue is what, precisely, it means to say “directly killed” (versus some other qualifier, or none at all), and the question remains: were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in fact examples of “directly killing innocents”? And that’s where the question of double effect enters in.

As a personal coda to what seems to be dissolving into a college bull session, I note the story of the Quaker who was faced with a burglar. He took his rifle and aimed it at the burglar.

The burglar mocked him: “I know you won’t shoot me because you are a Quaker”.

“Thou’rt right, friend. I will not shoot thee. But thou standest where I am about to shoot”.

No one seems to have the courage to identify personal responsibility for the bombs. I repeat that there is a tad [or more than a tad] of self congratulation in the discussion that “I wasn’t there”.

A manner of absolving oneself from any taint of guilt would be to give up all the excess benefits one has and send them to the poor. Excess benefits: whatever goes beyond minimal shelter, food, and the like. This can easily be determined by examining what provisions are available to a poor family in Africa or India or on the Indian reservation or in Appalachia, for example. St. Thomas writes that such excess belongs - belongs - to the poor, of natural right.

“Excess benefits: whatever goes beyond minimal shelter, food, and the like. This can easily be determined by examining what provisions are available to a poor family in Africa or India or on the Indian reservation or in Appalachia, for example.” Surely computers used for viewing, hosting, and posting blog comments count as such “excess benefits”, yes? I guess we’d all better say bye now, then!

Mr Shea, I own my own home.

So you say.  But by the same occult rites by which you know what I would do in battle and Mr. Fuqay divines my views on pacifism and liturgical dance, I know otherwise.  ;)

One element of just war that is getting bypassed in this discussion is proportionality. In Kathleen’s example, I would certainly be justified in applying force (perhaps even deadly force) in a response proportional to the the threat to life (e.g., fist for fist, club for club, gun for gun. In the Japan situation, I think due consideration was given to the proportionality in light of Adm. Leahy’s objection - he arrived at the conclusion that the known destructiveness of the atom bomb was unproportionally greater than continued conventional war. Doesn’t that answer your objection, Mr. Hostetter?

“Adm. Leahy ... arrived at the conclusion that the known destructiveness of the atom bomb was unproportionally greater than continued conventional war.” I’m not sure what this means. What is the measure of “destructiveness” used by Adm. Leahy: lives lost, civilian lives lost, destruction of defenses, destruction of war industries, destruction of buildings? What is meant by “the atom bomb”? A single bomb of the Hiroshima type? The combined destructiveness (however measured) of both Fat Man and Little Boy? The destructiveness (however measured) of all the atomic bombs the US projected might be needed? (And how many was that?) This certainly flies in the face of the projected casualties between the two scenarios that I’ve read in various accounts. (Not that that really matters anyways, since consequentialism is invalid and not the issue for me.)  In any event, I don’t see how this answers the issue of double effect.

Also, I’m not sure that I’ve really raised any “objections”, but rather questions.

Please, sir, you’re beginning to quibble rather than ask honest questions. “Known destructiveness” in terms of the test done at Alamogordo. On that basis, they knew how effective Fat Man would be (same type as the Trinity test). They either knew or had a pretty reasonable idea of how destructive it would be to civilians and used it anyway because it was quicker. That can’t be weighed against the loss of civilians in a conventional invasion. I said nothing about double effect, only proportionality as a just war criterion.

I think, now, I have lost what respect I had for Jimmy Akin and Mark Shea.  The statement “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil, it is never morally legitimate to target innocent civilians, even in wartime” is correct.  However, where is the proof that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not legitimate military targets, and the U.S. targeted ‘innocent’ civilians.  Why is it Jimmy and Mark are not answering the questions posted by Brian English and Carl Hostetter?  People commenting on this blog keep repeating the same argument without answering legitimate questions.  So when legitimate questions are asked and not answered, an individual looses some respect for those making the original statement and those who support him without answering the questions.

I’m sorry, Mr. Daugherty, I do not mean to “quibble”. Really, how would I know what Adm. Leahy meant? Is it wrong to ask for clarification before answering a question? Your answer, though, still doesn’t define “destructiveness”, in any terms that I can compare with the casualties projected (and obviously not by me!) by other sources for an invasion (i.e. at least 1,000,000, and likely at least twice that), as you invite me to do merely by stating Adm. Leahy’s assessment of two scenarios. And in the event Adm. Leahy was wrong _in the sense that_ the casualties of the two bombs (roughly 200,000, counting both immediate and eventual deaths) was far less than the projections of casualties on an invasion. Of course, we can’t know for certain what they would have been, since we can’t run experiments with history. But as I have already allowed, none of this is really relevant. The argument put forth by Jimmy doesn’t depend in the least on the number of innocent deaths, only that there is at least one: as has been repeatedly stated (and as I have repeatedly agreed), consequentialism is invalid.

Also, Mr. Daugherty, I have asked a number of questions in these comments. Before asking that I answer yours (or faulting me for not doing so), isn’t it reasonable for you to first answer mine?

I should like to hear Jimmy, or anyone else, apply these principles to the flood of Genesis 7 or the war strategy of Joshua 6:21, “and they took the city, and they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

Dan, I’ve already given my own answer to this above. In short, since our existence, indeed all existence, at every moment is a gratuitous act of God’s will, and since He is the author of every human life, it is His right to demand the end of any life, or to HImself cause it, or to end our existence or all of existence, at any moment. We humans, however, of our own will, do not have that same right.

You asked a great many questions, Mr. Hostetter, and I attempted an answer to one of them. This is a long thread and I have a short memory. Sorry for mischaracterizing them as objections; or for saying you’re quibbling - that was unduly impatient of me.  Let me try this, which may also answer Jodi PC. In Kathleen’s scenario, I encounter a man beating someone with his fists. May I shoot him? No, neither in moral law nor in criminal law. My response must be proportional. Suppose he has a gun and I shoot at him but hit Kathleen instead; am I guilty of murder? No, because he threatened with a gun so my response was proportional. (Sorry, Kathleen.) I know this is simplistic. I am a Viet Nam veteran - I understand making deadly choices when civilians are about. However, the war planners for the atomic attack had convincing evidence that it would “work”, and knowingly chose a disproportional response. We are agreed about the numbers game except to say “intentional” casualties. There would have been civilian casualties either way - but the millions that are bandied about includes soldiers. @Dan - read the whole thread. Your biblical questions have been answered a couple times.

“I encounter a man beating someone with his fists. May I shoot him?” Yes, if a) the man, in your judgment, is attempting to kill or severely cripple that person (as shooting someone could be expected to do), and b) you have no other reasonable means to stop this attempt (for example, you are a slight person and the man is a large hulk). (I agree with your answer to the second scenario, regarding the unintentional shooting.) “The war planners ... knowingly chose a disproportional response”: of this I am not yet convinced. I _could_ be, but I have not yet been, since I’ve seen no evidence for the claim, and since it depends on how one measure proportionality (number of likely casualties, civilian or otherwise? the bombings were judged to result in far fewer than invasion in conjunction with conventional means of attack; destruction of structures and/or industry? again, the two bombings caused far less of this than an invasion w/ conventional attacks was expected to; etc.).

@Carl: If your short answer stands, it negates the idea that killing an innocent is an intrinsic evil, an act that is everywhere and always evil.

@Bill: Sorry, as you said, this is a long thread.  After reading 2/3 of it, I did not see my question addressed, so I jumped to end and asked.

In the article, Jimmy cites Evangelium Vitae wherein John Paul II proclaimed:

“By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being.”

That doesn’t leave any wiggle room.  If this is an absolute moral law, even God will act accordingly.  To suggest otherwise is to ascribe sin to God.

So is the only honest question left around the word direct?

perhaps Carl could restate his question now that most of the shouters have left?

Dan, I’m sorry, but the Church does _not_ teach that “killing an innocent is an intrinsic evil, an act that is everywhere and always evil.” It teaches that the _direct and intentional_ killing of an innocent is always and everywhere evil (CCC 2261, 2263, etc.). And _again_ (how many times do I have to repeat this?) my concern is only to establish to what extent the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really did constitute the _direct and intentional_ killing of innocents. If it can be established that they were (and I must state again that I give the benefit of the doubt to “those who have responsibility for the common good”, per CCC 2309), I will wholeheartedly agree that the bombings were _direct and intentional_ killing of innocents. But I will not agree to this (again, per CCC 2309) until and unless that can be established, including accounting for the historical fact (as yet unrefuted) that the US made every attempt to warn, frankly, _everyone_, to evacuate Hiroshima and Nagasaki before they were bombed.

I’ll have to leave the thread now. I will grant that your questions are reasonable but you may be rendering them unanswerable by your own specifications. Even though I must leave you unanswered, I enjoyed the conversation. God bless you all.

Further, Dan, I have to ask: if the Church teaches what you (seem to) mean to say it does, then how could any contemporary Catholic morally be a member of the armed services in wartime? _Any_ non-trivial action of modern, mechanized warfare runs the foreseeable risk that an innocent will be killed (even unintentionally), a (putative) evil to which any member of the armed services during wartime must materially contribute. And yet the Church does _not_ simply state that no Catholic may be a member of the armed services during wartime. Why not make such a simple and direct proclamation, if the Church means to teach what you seem to think it does? (Personally, I would absolutely accept such a teaching _if the Church stated it_; but it does not.)

Likewise, Bill. I remain yours in Christ.

Slow down, Carl.  I agree with your fundamental position.  However, I asked a question at 7:48PM, which you answered at 7:55.  My question involved God deliberately drowning all living souls, save eight, or the warriors of Israel running through Jericho sticking a sword into every man, woman, and child.  I think either of those events qualify as the “direct and intentional killing of an innocent.”

Regarding your questions @8:58, a Catholic can morally be a member of the military because there is no prohibition against it, save one’s own conscience.  As to your “why not” question, I am the wrong person to ask.  Please direct your question to the Vatican.

Jodi PC you ask why the questions you want answered aren’t being answered. It’s like this Jodi: Mark and Jimmy have already committed themselves to an idea that they reguard as holy writ. ‘America committed a war crime by a-bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki’. They will not allow any contrary facts to disrupt their fantasy. Anyone who dares to do so is a heretic. It is an ideology with them. what was just an idea in their heads have harded into truth without proof because they say so. What’s interesting to me is that they act like 60’s hippies and radicals protesting the Vietnam war. They thoght America was rotten too.

But God’s agency (direct or indirect) is not the same as our (unprompted) agency, for the reasons I gave. Or so I think!

Steve, I don’t think that’s quite fair. Neither Jimmy nor Mark has (yet!) denounced me as a heretic, despite my multiply expressed doubts about their conclusions (and the bases thereof). As much as I would like to see Jimmy and Mark respond to the questions raised here (mine or others’), for my own edification (as I have tremendous respect for their work and thoughts, and tremble to disagree with them), they are under no obligation to do so. From my view, it is enough that they allow questions about their positions and claims to be raised and discussed, as others who might not have considered such questions will be able to do so, if they wish. After all, _none_ of us here can answer these questions infallibly. Only the Church can do so (if moved to do so by the Holy Spirit) in this world; and only God is certain to do so (whether in this world or the next).

Carl,

I don’t think you are going to find a satisfying answer because unfortunately, it looks like it just might be you and me left searching.

Based on the Catechism quotes, I’m thinking that it was an immoral act.  I think that the points you bring up (warnings, etc) lessen the culpability but it still seems to me that the act itself (just like the firebombings) targeted the innocents.  I think that the direct and intentional killing of the innocents was the means. 

I’m still willing to explore this with you but I’m not sure if I have much more to offer.  Thank you again for your courtesy and honesty.

Carl, they may not have denounced you as a heretic, but as I mentioned to Jodi PC, Mark and Jimmy treat their idea about the a-bombings as holy writ. They basically ignore you, but if you get nder their skins, they lash out with ridicule and sarcasm. Both of them have been presented with more than enough proof that their ideas don’t match up with reality, bt to them,the idea is more important than the truth. They are first cosins to the leftist protesters of the 60’s who also thought the USA was evil, and North Vietnam was good. Well, we all know how that turned ot, don’t we?

“Red_Beard” and steve: I in any event appreciate your supportive words, and remain yours in Christ.

@steve dalton

You are always good for a laugh. I don’t know where all of your hate is coming from, but it is way out of proportion to anything either actually said on these threads.  Though Mark Shea doesn’t pull his punches and is sarcastic, Jimmy has always responded reasonably and with more courtesy than most could muster in his place.

You are the one lashing out at everyone and I’m worried about you.  Hate tends to eat away at you if you let it. 

“”“Both of them have been presented with more than enough proof that their ideas don’t match up with reality”“”

I think that the fact that Carl and I still have questions shows that there hasn’t been much proof at all.  There have been a lot of irrational, fallacious, and consequentialist arguments made.  When push comes to shove, Maximus’ argument (on the previous thread) about how the principal of double effect might apply is the only rationally consistent argument I’ve heard.  I don’t think it’s enough for me, but I encourage anyone else to read it for an argument a Christian can stand behind without shutting off his brain.

Good job in making us think.  You have obviously “hit a nerve” near our “patriotism” bone.  I find that I always have to stop and unweave my “patriotic” thinking from my Catholic moral teaching.  In the end, I still find myself patriotic, because America is such a great land and people; even in the darkness of war, it still yearns for the truth found in the light of God (Or so I pray).  Indeed American ideals and freedoms assure this free exchange of ideas and the practice of our faith (at least for the time being).  I am thankful to God for this freedom and I know that a multitude of men and woman have given their last full measure in order to assure this freedom for us.
In that vein, I am very proud of our military.  About four years ago my son found himself in the most frequently attacked forward operating base in Iraq.  They were under constant rocket and small arms attack (for 6 months or so).  But, they were surrounded by schools and innocent civilians.  And so, our American Army troops did not return fire, despite their own lives being in real danger, for fear of causing harm to the innocents.  That was not a “new” tactic, but, I am told, just standard operating procedure from the Army Field Manual.  Bullet fragments from my son’s body armor attest to the attacks, my son claims to have never the opportunity to return fire safely.  Unfortunately many demonize the warrior with criticisms of the process, and that is not just.

Though you do a good job of referencing authoritative teaching, and even Pope Pius XII, you fall into a trap very common to liberals and proto-Catholics.  Namely, after the fact projection of hind sight.

E.g, “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.”

Consider these truths and facts, before you claim “deliberate” and “indiscriminate”.

The Hiroshima bomb was a completely different design than the Trinity bomb, hence though they had high confidence in the bomb working, they really didnt know how effective the bomb would be.  And the targets were chosen for their strategic value and ability to be hit.  Furthermore, even if the US had warned Japan do you really think the Japanese people would have believed the US had such a bomb?  Do you think they would have emptied the city at the US threat?  No, no they would not.

The goal was not to deliberately and indiscriminately kill innocent women and children; hence your title is in direct contradiction to your argument and shows poor intellectual honesty.

Most importantly, there is a grave, and I mean grave in the CCC sense, difference between intellectual discernment and judgment of theological question and the judgment that is condemnation of a person[s] in whom which you have at best little knowledge.  The disposition of your soul seems to be quite ... lost.  The assumptions, assertions and judgments regarding what happened, the wide swath of Americans against which you apply these assumptions and judgments, and the tone of condemnation and contempt which drips from your pen clearly shows a disposition of spirit which seems more interested in condemnation and being right than Charity toward something you know so very little of.

Like so many of the evangelically minded bloggers you conveniently remove those aspects of knowledge, experience and humanity from those who faced the decisions and judge them.

Or said another way, if picketing an abortion clinic carried a life prison sentence, would you each day, until they were all in prison, send each of your kids to picket?  Followed by all your nieces and nephews, and all your neighborhood’s kids?  All the children in your town?  And if you dont do it, those people going in for an abortion come out and try to kill you and all those kids?  What would you be willing to do to stop the insanity of those committing the abortions and wanting to kill you?  How far would you go?  If you could stop it by blowing up the clinic would you do it to save millions of lives? 

And when you’re all done, I’ll sit here and pull out the CCC and tell everyone how you were a hypocrite and an arrogant man who deliberately and indiscriminately killed innocent people who were working in the “doctor’s” office but werent scrambling babies.

Catholic teaching is clear in that it points one to the gravamen of grave questions and situations.  But the correct understanding to judge/condemn these things are found only through God’s Grace. 

On the lips of every other man should, first and last, be the word Charity.

AMDG
Knight

“Based on the Catechism quotes, I’m thinking that it was an immoral act.”

But what did the Catechism say in August 1945?  Men understand the injustice of ex post facto laws, so God certainly does.

The most contemporaneous alleged condemnation of the bombings I have been presented with is a statement by Pius XII NINE YEARS after the bombings.  In that statement Pius actually allows for the use of nuclear weapons in limited circumstances that do not appear to apply to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  However, construing that as a condemnation of the bombings is probably reaching, especially since nowhere in the statement does Pius use the words “Hiroshima” or “Nagasaki.”

I do not know if anyone posted this yet, but here is the translated text of the first leaflet:

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:

“America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

“We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29’s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

“We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

“Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrendor: We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

“You should take stops now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all out other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.”

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

Here is the text of the second:

“ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE” EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

“Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

“The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war against you.

“Also because of your leaders’ refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

“A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29’s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

“Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resourse of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the Emperor now to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender; We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace loving Japan.

“Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.”

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

“two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war against you.”

So what do you mean by “the first leaflet”? The Soviet Union entered the war on August 8, the day before the dropping of the second bomb. If that had happened “in the last few days”, then this leaflet, if accurate about the events, was never delivered to Nagasaki. And, minor point, it was also lying about the possible consequences, because after Nagasaki the US had no more atomic bombs. The next one was months in the future. At any rate, this cannot have been a leaflet that was intended to mitigate the possibility of innocent civilians’ being killed by an atomic bomb attack.

@Carl (7:32 yesterday)

Adm. Leahy means that his understanding of the destructive effects of the atomic bomb was that it would be greater than the destructive effects of continuing to fight for Japan’s surrender using conventional war-making capabilities. In hindsight - which he didn’t have at the time - this prudential judgement on his part would seem to have been inaccurate, but that is also a secondary concern. Because, regardless of the proportionality of possible damage to Japan, he opposed the use of the atomic bomb because he had learned that Americans do not fight by killing “women and children” (the phrase in use then for “innocent non-combatants”). Whether the use of the bombs would be more or less destructive than invasion, he mainly opposed their use for exactly the reason provided by Jimmy Akin in this article: it is wrong to target civilians.

Which, Richard, is precisely why the US made every effort to effect an evacuation of the targeted areas. Furthermore, a conventional bombing and invasion would also have resulted in vast numbers of civilian casualties. Does that mean that it would have been immoral to do that too? If not, then what is the difference in the two cases? Is it only the use of an atomic bomb that makes things immoral? If so, why doesn’t the Church just declare that it is never licit to use an atomic bomb?

Richard, the first text is the leaflet that was dropped (by the millions) after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. An earlier leaflet, dropped (by the millions) before Hiroshima, reads:

“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

Similar messages were also being broadcast by radio every 19 mins. since before Hiroshima.

@Steve

That is a beautiful post.  Please convey my sincere thanks to your son for sacrificing to defend our freedom.

@Knight

“”“If you could stop it by blowing up the clinic would you do it to save millions of lives?”“”

So, if Jimmy can be tempted to sin… what?!?  Jimmy is a man, I don’t know this for a fact, but I would hazard a guess that he sins.  What is your point?

@HCSKnight - sorry for spelling your name wrong in the last post.

You do realize, don’t you, that you are judging the state of Jimmy’s soul by the criteria that you believe he is judging other’s souls?  Did you miss that part of your own argument?  All this in a post where you are hypocritically trying to point out his hypocrisy. 

Talk about irony.

I must say, it was a very entertaining read!

@Brian:

“”“But what did the Catechism say in August 1945?  Men understand the injustice of ex post facto laws, so God certainly does.”“”

Yeah, but the law was there, written on their hearts.  It wasn’t made up when the CCC was written.  That being said, God knows their hearts and will judge them justly -taking into account all circumstances.  I don’t so I can only look at the act.

” And, minor point, it was also lying about the possible consequences, because after Nagasaki the US had no more atomic bombs. The next one was months in the future.”

This has to be some kind of joke.

Carl, if that leaflet were in fact dropped on Nagasaki before the bomb, then it was done without enough time to be helpful on any practical level. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8; on August 9 the bomb was dropped.

But of course, that still leaves the first leaflet campaign, which, if true, would seem to mitigate somewhat the evil of destroying the cities named (any chance of coming up with the names of the cities on the reverse side?). There’s still the real certainty that many civilians would not, in fact, leave the cities even if most of them did. And most civilians would in all likelihood have blown off the leaflet and radio campaigns as so much Yankee propaganda, even though we had more than adequately demonstrated our willingness and ability to destroy Japanese cities. From my knowledge of the war, the leaflet you describe as having been the precursor to Hiroshima is scrupulously accurate. I haven’t read near as much about the specifics of the bombings as some others here have; what sort of literature on the Japanese side has discussed how they understood and responded to America’s warnings? How much would these warnings mitigate the evil of indiscriminately destroying an entire city?

I have no particular wish to add to the catalog of my country’s real or perceived injustices which it has been accused of inflicting on the world. I still tend to agree with those military commanders of ours at the time who would have had the closest understanding of our military ethos and capabilities, including leafletting campaigns, and who still thought it was wrong to do it.

It’s also not true. According to Wikipedia (which provides a link to the contemporary source document): “The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October. On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that “the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18.” Thankfully, they were not needed.

“What sort of literature on the Japanese side has discussed how they understood and responded to America’s warnings?” That’s a very good question, and I’d be happy to be pointed to relevant sources and studies.

“Yeah, but the law was there, written on their hearts.  It wasn’t made up when the CCC was written.”

Well, if history shows us anything, it is that men have a hard time reading what is written on their hearts.

Beyond that, Jimmy has labeled the bombings a war crime.  Therefore, Truman, any military who argued in favor of the bombings, and the crews of the planes that delivered the bombs, were all war criminals in his view.

If you are going to label people as criminals, you should have something that clearly spells out what law they violated.  Condemning them after the fact, based on standards that have clearly been written to apply specifically to those incidents, is simply unfair.

If you want to argue that the bombings would not be permitted under the CCC as it is now constituted, fine.  You have a pretty strong argument on that point (although no one has sufficiently responded to the warning leaflets).  However, to look back and impugn the honor of men trying to make a terrible decision in a horrible situation, is simply wrong.

Brian, it was a minor point. Carl supplied the text of an earlier leaflet which was, in fact, scrupulously accurate with regard to such knowable facts as it contained. Ease up.

“I have no particular wish to add to the catalog of my country’s real or perceived injustices which it has been accused of inflicting on the world. I still tend to agree with those military commanders of ours at the time who would have had the closest understanding of our military ethos and capabilities, including leafletting campaigns, and who still thought it was wrong to do it.”

But obviously there were other military commanders (and the President) who thought it was the right thing to do.  Aren’t they entitled to any deference on this?

Of course men have a hard time reading the law written on their hearts. What is telling about Adm. Leahy’s response is that it was written on his heart at the time, in fact had been put there by the United States military when he was being trained as an officer in the Navy. Truman and his advisers are being judged, in this instance, by a just war tenet which was known and taught at the time in his country.

Richard asks, “How much would these warnings mitigate the evil of indiscriminately destroying an entire city?” I just want to point out that in neither case did the atomic bombs “destroy the entire city”.

Moreover, Roosevelt had committed the United States to a war goal of unconditional surrender, which is itself an unjust aim. Truman continued this policy although there is evidence that Japan had been putting out peace feelers as early as May, but with “conditions”.
What we know is that dropping the bombs is what they wanted to do. Whether they thought it the right thing to do is perhaps not known; what is known is that they were opposed at the time by responsible men who expressly told them it was not the right thing to do, and that that opposition was right.

The leaflets you represent above as having been scattered over Nagasaki contained these words: “We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29’s can carry on a single mission.” I would say that pretty much means that one bomb can destroy an entire city and that its use was contemplated beforehand in those terms. Certainly anyone who took up the leaflet’s invitation to inquire into Hiroshima’s fate would have determined that one bomb destroyed an entire city and would have looked askance at any reference to the handful of surviving buildings and citizens being a contradiction of that statement.

Josh said, “That being said, I must take issue with your use of the phrase “war crime”. This phrase has a specific legal meaning. In order to commit a war crime, we must prove MENS REA…or evil intent.”

The Mens Rea requirement only requires an intent to commit the crime.  If the intent of bropping the bombs was to kill civilians, than that requirement is met.  There is no “good intention” defense to murder.  The nuclear bombing of Japan was an escalation of force and was not done in self defense (American borders were not under threat of invasion). 

The reason so many are upset by Jimmy’s argument is because they have a misplaced patriotism.  It is a good thing to love your country, and a noble thing to fight to defend your fellow citizens.  However, it is neither good, noble, nor patriotic to defend evil actions simply because they were performed by the powers that be.

I stand corrected on the point of the immediate availability of other atomic weapons. It was still a minor point.

“The leaflets you represent above as having been scattered over Nagasaki contained these words: “We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29’s can carry on a single mission.” I would say that pretty much means that one bomb can destroy an entire city and that its use was contemplated beforehand in those terms. Certainly anyone who took up the leaflet’s invitation to inquire into Hiroshima’s fate would have determined that one bomb destroyed an entire city and would have looked askance at any reference to the handful of surviving buildings and citizens being a contradiction of that statement.”

Perhaps they exaggerated a little so that PEOPLE WOULD GET OUT OF THE CITY!

Jimmy, I generally love reading your blog because your cerebral take on Catholic and Christian issues are normally so on the nose, logically concise and thought provoking but I have to admit I was a little shocked at these posts about the atomic weapons dropped in Japan.

Jimmy, your position either seems to be a little ignorant of history (which is understandable because no one can possibly be an expert on everything) or just logically inconsistent.

Jimmy,you said, “Because the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil, it is never morally legitimate to target innocent civilians, even in wartime.”

Now growing up with a family of amateur military historians I knew from a ridiculously young age that the US military dropped millions of leaflets telling civilians in the target zones to evacuate these areas because we were going to drop the A-bomb.

So not only was the US military not targeting innocent civilians, they warned them of the coming attack, which is something a military that was trying to kill civilians would not have done.

Granted, tens of thousands of innocent people were killed by the bombs but they were not the target of the attacks and I think the dropping of the leaflets highlight this nuance. And because of this, I think the only logical explanation for the dropping of the bombs is the principle of double effect.

I’d be interested to hear your opinion on this Jimmy. Maybe you could clarify your position a little more. I hate disagreeing with my hero! :-)

Not meaning to divert the conversation, but Joe’s post above reminded me of a point I was going to raise last night and ran out of gas first. It may be that we are incorrectly conflating Catholic doctrine of Just War and the Geneva Conventions which defines “war crimes”. I know that GC proscribes deliberately targeting civilian populations but perhaps also proscribes locating military facilities in civilian areas. I don’t know the answer to that but it makes Mr. Hostetter’s questions all the more
  Not to digress further but this thread has been one of the marvels of internet discourse in my experience. They usually devolve into stupid dust-ups in which everyone is calling everyone who disagrees a Nazi. Thank you all for a civil conversation on a difficult subject.

So it seems to be a question of whether or not sufficient warning changes the character of the act (the means).

If this is really the question, and we agree that you cannot commit immoral acts even for good ends, then is the direct and intentional destruction of an innocent’s property an immoral act? 

Again, you are targeting a city, not a building or a district within that city.  The act itself is against the city.

Obviously it is less evil to intentionally destroy an innocent’s home than to intentionally kill the innocent.  But that being said, there is NO evil act that you can commit based on a desire for a good end.

Also, if there are any consequentialists still hanging around, you can’t understand my point so don’t bother replying.  I’m talking to people who are intent on following Christ.

Oops. Mr. Hostetter’s questions all the more salient.

For anyone who would like to know, by the end of WW2 there wasn’t enough of Tokyo left to bomb.

It had already been repeatedly firebombed- homes, families, everything burned, and there was little food.

Unlike many of those commenting on the blog, I went to Japan recently and saw the museums that showed what happened in Tokyo. Ever wonder why the majority of buildings in Tokyo are new compared to those in Kyoto?

I also visited Hiroshima, and went to Mass there for Palm Sunday. Yes, there are Japanese Catholics, including many who were Catholic at the time of the bomb.

Also, I find it odd that the direct place of the bomb in Nagasaki was the Cathedral there, or at least that was what I had been told.

You still see people occasionally that look…different in Japan. I saw an old man walking once and did a double-take- I thought he was black, and you hardly ever see black people in the more country areas of Japan, much less older black people. Turns out, he was Japanese and his skin had been burned so badly that even now as an old man, it is very dark, except for patches that must have been shielded.

People are still suffering because of the two bombs- people that were exploited by both governments. The Japanese were horrible even to their own people, and after the bombs…it was like people tried to pretend it never happened.

The children born soon after the bomb often either died, were malformed, or suffered from retardation that otherwise wouldn’t have been present. They received little help from either government. People are still walking around with pieces of glass stuck in their bodies from the blast! And don’t even mention cancer…

Yes, the Japanese were horrible- in some ways worse than us. They didn’t treat their own people well in the first place, and what they did to American POW’s, even nurses, was absolutely barbaric and shameful.

However,the ends never justify the means- we absolutely did something horrible, and just because we haven’t been convicted of “War Crime” yet doesn’t mean we didn’t commit one.

I’m glad there is a non-heterodox Catholic voice out writing for this- we need a touch of stark honesty.

“Of course men have a hard time reading the law written on their hearts. What is telling about Adm. Leahy’s response is that it was written on his heart at the time, in fact had been put there by the United States military when he was being trained as an officer in the Navy. Truman and his advisers are being judged, in this instance, by a just war tenet which was known and taught at the time in his country.”

But other men who received the same training disagreed with him.  President Truman served as an artilleryman during WWI, so he also knew something about the horrors of war.

Tokyo actually was considered as a target, because of the presence there of the Emperor’s Palace, but was in the end not selected because it was judged not to have sufficient strategic value (which fact also speaks against the notion that the intent was either chiefly or solely to inflict terror, as opposed to military goals).

“I find it odd that the direct place of the bomb in Nagasaki was the Cathedral there, or at least that was what I had been told.” That is false. The target was the Aioi Bridge, which however the bomb missed by 800 feet due to crosswinds, exploding instead over the Shima Surgical Clinic.

All these facts are easily found by a cursory review of literature. Is it really right to rely on hearsay when evaluating such a serious matter?

“I went to Japan recently and saw the museums that showed what happened in Tokyo.”

Well, the Japanese do like to present themselves as being, along with the Jews, the leading victims of WWII.

” Yes, there are Japanese Catholics, including many who were Catholic at the time of the bomb.”

The center of Catholicism in Japan was, and I believe still is, Nagasaki.

Bob Hope, if the repeated “COPYRIGHT 2002 EWTN"s in your post didn’t give you a clue that it was inappropriate to quote at such length (thus easily violating copyright numerous times), then the sheer length of it should have tipped you off that _no one is going to bother to read such a tome_ to see whether you have any germane point to make here.

I thought Bob Hope had died, and as a member of the Catholic Church?

@Carl: Oh, I think he has a point to make.

“Truly the “Dark Ages” were named the Dark Ages correctly, not only was there dark evil practices sanctioned and perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church, but many of its theological teachings and ideas (like a flat earth) were taught as the truths of God. Even in this so-called enlightened age the main part of the Catholic church and its Pope and high ranking leaders, stood by while Hitler and his demonic ideas were brought into reality before and during World-War Two.”

Obviouly, some of us are able to continue in our bigoted opinions without the pesky adulteration of facts.

from Red_Beard: “So it seems to be a question of whether or not sufficient warning changes the character of the act (the means).”

I think that would be a pretty good discussion to have.

Wow, @Bob as a typical American with ADD, there’s no way I can read your posts.  Do they have anything at all to do with the topic of this discussion?

I could (do) wish that Billy Graham had accepted the fulness of truth in the Catholic faith, but even so, he never made a mockery of the Gospel. Given that, I don’t know what “& CO” you would be referring to. The problem of paedophile clery is not paedophile clergy (a distinction I am confident is lost on you). Which supports my earlier conclusion that your bigotry is unalloyed by any real facts.

And still leaves me, for one, mystified as to what your ramblings might have to do with just war doctrine and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This discussion has been very engaging, cerebral, emotional, and (not meant as a cop out) I can’t help but feel I’ll only know the truth of this when I go before GOD. A host of questions to throw out there (Sorry if they have already been answered in the thread. I only read so much of it). Also, I’m not trying to play a game of “gotcha” but trying to understand the application of Church teaching.

1) Did the Church officially condemn this act?

2) What recent war has been just?

3) Can a Catholic forestall evil with force? (i.e. deranged man charging innocents and you having no recourse but to shoot him)

4) Were the Crusades a just venture?

Yours in Christ

1) As noted above, Pius XII condemned the action, with what constraints on the consciences of Catholics I am not certain.
2) I am satisfied that the movement of the American military into Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks conformed well to modern just war doctrine, at least with regards to jus ad bellum. I am sure there were violations of just war teaching in the prosecution of that war, as there were in World War II on the Allied side (who, with the major exception of the Soviet Union, were justified in going to war against the Axis powers).
3) Yes, force sufficient effectively to repel the attack. If only mortal force is sufficient to repel an attack reasonably presumed to be mortal, then mortal force is justified.

4) “The Crusades” were a response to 150 years of aggression against Christians in the Holy Lands. The response was justified, I would say, although the form the response took was often not justifiable.

Does anyone have a link to what Pope Pius XII actually wrote. Sorry, but I want to read it and not get a permutation of it. Thanks!

““The Crusades” were a response to 150 years of aggression against Christians in the Holy Lands. The response was justified, I would say, although the form the response took was often not justifiable.”

It was actually over 450 years, and the aggression took place throughout the Mediterranean (including an attack on Rome in 846).  And as far as how justifiable certain incidents were during the Crusades, that is a subject for another day.

Brian, I was trying to cut the Muslims some slack!

There are generally understood to be two parts to just war teaching: just reasons to go to war, jus ad bellum, and just conduct in war, jus in bello (belli?) (now I can’t remember my neuter ablatives!). This whole topic, of course, is about just conduct in war.

Bob, thank you for the information on Pingfan. This shows that the Juapanese had a deliberate policy of atrocity from the get go. I’m sad that the US bought the results of Pingfan from the Japs, but I hope the contining exposre of this horror will result in justice for some of the victims.

Whoever dropped these bombs, he dropped them on Jesus. ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did to one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Jimmy Akin completely nukes the country of Strawmanistan in this post. He “deliberately” refuses to accurately portray both the pertinent Catholic moral principles and the actual circumstance within which Truman made his decision to drop the bombs, despite the fact he has been made aware of them on several occaions.

But for benefit of the readers I shall restate them.

In his book Moral Theology (which I purchased from Catholic Answers over a decade ago) Fr. Heribert Jone outlines the moral principles regarding atomic warfare this way:

Atomic Warfare:

The fourth condition required for positing an action that has an evil effect that there be a sufficient reason, i.e., a proportionate resulting good, to permit the evil effect. The morality of using either the atomic or hydrogen bomb as a weapon of war is therefore, not a question of principle, which remains unchangeable, but a question of fact, and the fact questioned is whether there can be a military objective so vital to an enemy, the destruction of which would be a sufficient reason to permit the death of a vast number of civilians who at most contribute only remotely and indirectly to the war effort. We think this proportion can exist 1) because today’s concept of “total war” has greatly restricted the meaning of the term “non-combatant”; 2) because in modern warfare the conscription of industry, as well as manpower, greatly extends the effort on the home front; and 3) because it is difficult to set limits to the defense action of a people whose physical and even spiritual existence is threatened by a godless tyranny. Therefore, while use of atomic weapons must be greatly restricted to the destruction of military objectives, nevertheless, it may be justified without doing violence to the principle of a twofold effect. (Moral Theology #219 pp. 143-44 1961 Edition”
The meaning of the term non-combatant was not only “greatly restricted” by Imperial Japan, but obliterated. This is a fact that no reputable WWII historian would deny. In his biography of General Douglass MacArthur William Manchester points out:

“Hirohito’s generals, grimly preparing for the invasion, had not abandoned hope of saving their homeland. Although a few strategic islands had been lost, they told each other, most of their conquests, including the Chinese heartland, were firmly in their hands, and the bulk of their army was undefeated. Even now they could scarcely believe that any foe would have the audacity to attempt landings in Japan itself. Allied troops, they boasted, would face the fiercest resistance in history. Over ten thousand kamikaze planes were readied for “Ketsu-Go,” Operation Decision. Behind the beaches, enormous connecting underground caves had been stocked with caches of food and thousands of tons of ammunition. Manning the nation’s ground defenses were 2,350,000 regular soldiers, 250,000 garrison troops, and 32,000,000 civilian militiamen, a total of 34,600,000, more than the combined armies of the United States, Great Britain, and Nazi Germany. All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.” This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate,a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511)]”

This turned the entire country of Japan a larger military base, not a civilian center. And therefore, a legitimate military target.

Now, reasonable people can disagree as to whether or nor the dropping of the atomic bombs. But to engage in the kind of calumny Mr. Akin does here is an example of a once-great Catholic apologist engaging in the kind of behavior hardly befitting that of a fifth columnist writing for the New York Slimes is an outrage to say the least.

Mr. Akin heaps coals of shame upon himself as well as the Church with this libelous screed!!! And shame on the National Catholic Register does the same by allowing thier website to be a venue for such calumnious filth!!

“Now, reasonable people can disagree as to whether or nor the dropping of the atomic bombs”

This sentence is supposed to read “Now reaonable people can disagree as to whether or not dropping the bombs were proportionate, although I don’t see how Truman had a better choice at his disposal.”

@Greg,

  What, exactly, is the military target so vital that it’s destruction was worth these deaths?  I’m not saying that there were no military targets involved, but there really isn’t much of an argument that these were the two largest military targets in Japan.  This seems to be an attack against the will to wage war, not against the ability to do so.

Also, to presume that this priest hold’s more authority than the CCC is patently absurd. 

Your unbridled animosity is disturbing.  You are mercilessly attacking a man who I have found to be far more honest than most.  Without real cause, you are assuming villainous motives in one who puts out a logical argument that you disagree with.  Feel free to disagree, but reign in your hate and libelous attacks.  They don’t help your argument.

@Greg

It is in particular bad taste that you are attacking Jimmy on this post instead of on the last one.  This post is nothing but direct and honest representation of the Church’s universal condemnation of consequentialism, and yet this is the post you attack.  If this is really the post you have a problem with, then it isn’t Jimmy that you are disagreeing with; rather it is St. Paul, the Magesterium, and Christ Himself.

“Red_Beard” writes: “What, exactly, is the military target so vital that it’s destruction was worth these deaths?  I’m not saying that there were no military targets involved, but there really isn’t much of an argument that these were the two largest military targets in Japan.”

Hiroshima was important as a military communications center and the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Nagasaki was both one of the largest sea-ports in southern Japan and an industrial center for the production of ordnance, ships, and other war materials. Much of this production, notably, was done in private homes, as the Japanese government had distributed it throughout the civilian population.

Further, if you examine the map of the planned invasion of Japan here:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Operation_Downfall_-_Map.jpg>
you will see that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic targets in that their neutralization would greatly reduce the ability of Japanese forces to resist the southern leg of the invasion forces (Operation Olympic).

So as you see, size isn’t everything when it comes to military targets.

Note too that the southern leg of the planned invasion, Operation Olympic, was the earlier of the two (by 4 months). The plan was obviously to roll up the islands from the south, much as the US did in Sicily and Italy. Which explains why two important southern military centers were selected for the first bombings. This obviously strategic decision again speaks against the notion that the two cities were selected in order to target civilian populations.

I’m several days late to the party, but like I commented on Jimmy’s personal blog four years ago, I have to disagree with Jimmy’s analysis.  As long as the infrastructure was the target and every reasonable effort was made to protect innocent life (leaflet campaign, e.g.), then the atomic bombing of Japan COULD have been morally licit.  I’m not saying the historical reality reflects this (because I don’t have all the facts), but it also would be unjust to say the bomb was INTRINSICALLY evil.

@Carl

Thanks for the information.  I let Greg’s vitriol get under my skin.  I’m not convinced it’s enough, but as I said, I believe that honest men can debate it. I think that you have shown you are one of those honest men and Greg has shown he isn’t.

Nope, sorry guys—the USA is guilty of atomic terrorism.  Take in a big breath, and every one of you strive to be a man, a real man, and admit it—we’re terrorists.  Thank you President Truman for blowing away 95% of Japan’s Catholics. Hey Mr. Truman, you know that Consequentialism rocks—right on, dude!

Hirshioma and Nagasaki were not rich military targets.  Curtis Lemay wanted to firebomb them because he was running out of military targets but was told not to do so, to leave these and other lesser cities untouched.  Why? So as to give a more impressive demonstration on what happens to a pristine city by a single bomb, vs atomic bombing a city already bombed to smithereens by “conventional” weapons.  See The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. By Gar Alperovitz. (New York: Knopf, 1995. xiv, 847 pp. $32.50, ISBN 0-679-44331-2.)

Here’s a tidbit confirming why the atom bombing was militarily unnecessary:

  LEMAY: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

  THE PRESS: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
  . . .
  LEMAY: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. [THE DECISION, p. 336.]

* The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur’s pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

  General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster [the bomb]. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . . [THE DECISION, p. 350.]

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

  The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . [THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.]

* Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

  The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. [THE DECISION, p. 331.]

Source: http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

@Red_Beard

re: “So, if Jimmy can be tempted to sin… “
-  The point is Jimmy points to an act that defines sin by non-God terms but rather his terms; Jimmy does not know the thoughts/moral dilemma/knowledge/etc. etc. that those who made the decision were under.  Yet Jimmy enjoys proclaiming the truth as he sees it, without Charity…

re: “You do realize, don’t you, that you are judging the state of Jimmy’s soul by the criteria that you believe he is judging others souls?  Did you miss that part of your own argument?  All this in a post where you are hypocritically trying to point out his hypocrisy. “
- Wrong on both counts.  First of all my “judging” the state of Jimmy’s soul was by his own judgment, it was an attempt not to condemn, which is a gravely important distinction from judgment.  Secondly, what is hypocrisy?  It is NOT believing something and failing to live up to those beliefs; that is sin - e.g. you believe sex outside of marriage is wrong but you succumb to temptation and “fall/sin” - if you still believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, you are NOT a hypocrite, you are simply a sinner.  However, if you do NOT believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong but go around condemning those who do so, but do have sex outside of marriage, you are a hypocrite.  Do you understand the difference?

No worries about the name, I go by both.
Knight

@Jimmy

The depth of your ignorance and self serving deism is something that should worry you

You think from an act you can determine “deliberate”, more gravely you believe you can.

With “Why not do evil that good may come?” you claim to know the heart of those men who made the decision.

With “1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” - you again believe that those who acted did so out of a belief of perceived greater good/benefit as opposed to grave fear of not acting and in doing so allowing a grave evil to have continued….

So I am to see within you Christ?  I have no doubt that when the men who made the decision met Peter they were on their knees begging for forgiveness and pleading how they were so tortured by the fears of what they knew and didnt know and how they were so afraid.

When you STAND before Peter will have to explain why you, from the comfort of your warm home, that exists ONLY because men died and gave their all, you sat in your fat soft recliner and pondered why these men were so gravely filled with evil and ignorance and why the world did not have the wisdom to listen to you.

You are intoxicated with love for your own “wisdom” and have no sense that Charity is about loving God and not thinking you are Christ simply because you drivel YOUR “kindness” from your lips.

AMDG
Knight

To most but not all who have commented,

This “discussion” has proved the grave ignorance and proto-Catholic self-love which so deeply infects the RCC today.

The mere fact that this post has so many responses is in and of itself virtually proof of this ignorance and protestant mentality.

Those of you who “love” Jimmy and call him “your hero”... is that really your heart when you stand before Peter?

God Alone
HCSKnight

@HCSKnight

:-/ Really? I DISAGREE with a person I immensely respect and your only response is an insult?

“Gar Alperovitz.”

There’s your problem.

@HCSKnight,

My biggest point to you is that you are offended with Jimmy assuming the worst of the decision makers intentions and will.  You think he stated more than he could know with the term “deliberate.”  That is a reasonable position, but you are not presenting it in a reasonable manner.

In his posts, the major point is that the means are immoral, not the circumstances.  Those means can and should be examined.  Their souls cannot.

That being said, you go on to vividly describe what the final judgment of Jimmy and the final judgment of Truman will look like, clearly breaking the rule that you are accusing Jimmy of breaking! 

You are judging, if not Truman’s soul, at least his attitude towards God. (kneeling, supplication, requesting mercy, etc..)  You are also pompously judging Jimmy’s soul (“STAND"ing, condemning others at his particular judgment) 

You are not the almighty judge, the reader of souls, no matter how fun it might be to pretend on the internet.  You are effectively saying: “Jimmy did X and X is bad, so I’m going to hit Jimmy with 3 times X!  That will teach him!”  (note, it is the exact same X If X is bad, then 3X is probably worse)

I won’t quibble about whether or not this inconsistency (need to find a stronger word than that) is hypocrisy, that definition requires me to know what you actually believe.

@HCSKnight, et al.:
“With “Why not do evil that good may come?” you claim to know the heart of those men who made the decision.
.
.
.
So I am to see within you Christ?  I have no doubt that when the men who made the decision met Peter they were on their knees begging for forgiveness and pleading how they were so tortured by the fears of what they knew and didnt know and how they were so afraid.
.
.
.
You are intoxicated with love for your own “wisdom” and have no sense that Charity is about loving God and not thinking you are Christ simply because you drivel YOUR “kindness” from your lips.”

Mr. Akin wisely avoided speculating upon the conditions of the individual souls involved before the Judgement Seat of the Almighty. He confined his discussion the behavior under review and the known teaching of Christ as revealed through Scripture and the magisterium of the Church. Might I commend to you a similar humility and avoid speculation on the state Mr. Akin’s soul?

I am told that the decision to have an abortion is extremely difficult. Difficult or not, it is still gravely wrong, and is gravely wrong even if I make that determination from the comfort of my fat easy chair. That little bit of ad hominem was unworthy of the participants and the discussion up to now.

Mr. Akin opened a reasonable discussion, which it is necessary for thoughtful Americans to have, as we (our country) deliberate the most effective ways to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry amongst societies which appear to be eager to use them indiscriminately. It would be best for the United States, publicly, to declare that we ourselves had it in our power to use these weapons and drew back when we confronted the enormity of the crime such a use would have been. That is not now the approach we can take. The best we can do is to show that, having used these weapons ourselves, we have drawn back in horror at what we have done and resolved that neither we nor anyone else should have such power at our disposal. That will be much more difficult, obviously, without manifesting a great deal of hypocrisy, but has to start by forming a general societal opinion that this was an enormous crime.

In the course of this discussion, my general determination has tended to waver away from the understanding that this was a grave departure from just war norms, even as they were known and (imperfectly) practiced by the American military at the time. This wavering was mostly due to contemplating the mitigation provided by the advanced warning that was provided the target populations.

One thing the advanced warning does demonstrate is that the United States government knew that the destruction would in fact be indiscriminate. All the major combatants in World War II possessed the capability, theoretically, to destroy a manufacturing facility or oil field or shipyard while avoiding neighboring schools, hospitals, libraries and homes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both major seaports and manufacturing centers and so possessed clearly military targets, which could have been attacked by conventional bombing using more precise targeting. The use of the atomic bombs, while clearly effective against such military targets as the cities possessed, showed also a clear willingness not to care about the severe destruction of neighboring non-military personnel and structures.

Note: I am NOT deciding that it would be best publicly for my country to “draw back in horror at what it has done”, therefore I think the bombings were immoral. I think the bombings were immoral, and that my country should draw back in horror, however that might be done by a society with over 300 million souls. If I truly thought the bombings were justifiable, then I would have to suppose our public posture ought to be “We were justified in using the bomb then, we are safe custodians of such power now (which I actually think is true), and you (Iran) are not (which I also think is true), so you can’t have them”. Of course, we should also be pursuing a policy of developing a defence against nuclear attack and of divesting ourselves of our own supply of nuclear weapons as quickly as can safely be done.

Ok, while I’ve been composing this, Bob Hope has pasted another of his interminable and incomprehensible posts. I exempt him from the above observation that the discussion has been a worthy one among the participants so far.

@Bob Hope: just a memory from my late high school-early college days. When I worked summers at a foundry in town, I learned that iron melts at 2300F and we poured it at 3000F. It would soften at temperatures below 2300F, of course. I don’t know what kind of steel your interlocutor is referring to, but I think he’s shading his temps a bit to the high side.

“Ok, while I’ve been composing this, Bob Hope has pasted another of his interminable and incomprehensible posts. I exempt him from the above observation that the discussion has been a worthy one among the participants so far.”

Anti-Catholic, Anti-Semitic and a 9-11 Truther.  Wonderful.  Isn’t there an administrator on this board?

Mr. Hope should probably have a look at the book Popular Mechanics put out that refutes the various 9-11 conspiracy theories.  For instance, the fire did not have to melt the beams.  It just had to weaken them enough that they could not support the weight of the upper floors.

Section 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that: “the evaluation of the standards for moral legitimacybelongs to the prudential judgment of those who bear responsibility for the common good.”
And before the 2004 US elections then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the US bishops to remind them that “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in punishment o n criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.  there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion ans euthanasia.”
And the arguments that you self-righteous pacifists make against Hiroshima and Nagasaki apply more to D-Day and the fire-bombing of Dresden—Hitler never attacked the US, while Japan did attack ameerican soil (Hawaii and the Philippines).

My father was stationed on the West Cost in 1945, along with hundreds of thousands of others, preparing for the invasion of Japan.  Truman’s decision to drop the bombs probably saved his life.  And doing so probably saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well.  So let me ask you, O High-and-Mighty Moral Teacher, how many “innocents” would you kill to save the life of your own child?  One?  Ten?  A Thousand?  Until you can tell me that you would sacrifice your own child, wife, or parent to save one “innocent” life, you are not in a position to tell me, or anyone else, what constitutes a morality.  You’re living in a dream world.

@Charlene

“”“how many “innocents” would you kill to save the life of your own child?”“”

I pray to God that I would be strong enough to do His will in such a situation and kill none.  It is better to suffer evil than to commit it.

@Don

You are quoting about a just war.  Nowhere does it say that it is morally permissible to wage a just war in an unjust manner. 

Do we really need the name-calling?

@Charlene

“”“Until you can tell me that you would sacrifice your own child, wife, or parent to save one “innocent” life, you are not in a position to tell me, or anyone else, what constitutes a morality.”“”

The Church, St. Paul, and Christ are the ones telling others what constitutes morality.

How many innocents did God kill to save the life of His one innocent child?

Charlene, bravo! My father was a machinist’s mate in the Pacific during WWII. He was behind the lines in a dry dock, repairing ships, so he wasn’t in the line of fire. As to Akin’s and his buddy Shea, it’s stupid how these two can pontifcate about morality in war, yet they wouldn’t listen to those of us who were in it or had fathers or other relatives in it. The dynamic duo minds are made up, don’t confse them with the facts of real history.

@steve dalton

“”“The dynamic duo minds are made up, don’t confse them with the facts of real history. “”“

<sarcasm>“real” facts and history are now to be judged solely by the subjective impressions and experiences of relations of dissenting posters.  Sure, that makes sense!  We wouldn’t want to assume that principals laid out by St. Paul, Christ, Christ’s Church, or reason itself could possibly be “real”</sarcasm>

@don and charlene and steve dalton: The fallacy of consequentialism has already discussed. So spare us the already-discussed “more Japanese lives were saved by dropping the bomb” crap. We’re Catholics and we understand its deficiency.
And so you’re in the group that says only women can have a publicly valid opinion on abortion, and only soldiers (or their offspring) can have a publicly valid opinion on military conduct? We’re Catholics and we understand as well the deficiency of that kind of argumentation. The Catholic Church has had long experience of war, which she has distilled into her teaching on the subject. Messrs. Akin and Shea et al. are some of the conduits of that teaching. It matters not a whit to their argument whether they’ve served in the military or not.
I made the drive to the Naval processing center in Chicago one fine April day in 1973 as part of the application process for a Navy ROTC scholarship. I guess the Navy’s decision not to accept me means I get to have nothing to say for the rest of my life about my country’s conduct of military affairs? What all do you know of Akins’ and Shea’s experience that allows you to pass judgement on their point of view?

@don and charlene and steve dalton: And has already been pointed out, Eisenhower and Nimitz and many other American commanders who were themselves up to their elbows in blood and in preparations for the Japanese invasion shared the views expressed by Mr. Akins. Though with less reference to specifically Catholic teaching on the subject.

@Angry Catholic

Some Catholics have done bad things.  Those things aren’t made right because the people who did them where Catholic.  How does this pertain to this conversation?  Why are you so angry?

Boy, belonging to a church that speaks Latin sure doesn’t save you from the “tu quoque” argument, does it?

“”“my point is that it’s far easier to criticize another group than to criticize your own”“”

Stick around, Jimmy does it all the time.

Mark Shea:  “Good does not depend on evil to exist.”  True - but evil depends on good men to do nothing.

Mr Akin: I appreciate and respect your philosophical stand.  Unfortunately, we live in a real world where real evil exists - in the form of Attila the Hun, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, and the other guy I omitted, all of whom killed uncounted millions of people - in most cases, their own people.  People who, for the most part, believed in peaceful coexistence and appeasement.

Evil must be fought with tooth and nail, with guns and bombs and whatever lethal weapons we can put our hands on.  Wherever there is war, there are civilian casualties.  There also uncounted millions of lives that had to be rewritten (marriages prevented, families split apart, peaceful careers halted, poets and artists killed far too young).

War must be a last resort (but not too last, as per Mr Chamberlain).  We do not start it, but if it must be, we must put our whole hearts and minds into it, and fight with unbending resolve to bring the fight to the enemy, with the purpose of making him either give up or stop his aggression.  Our aim has not been to target innocent civilians - that’s why soldiers wear uniforms (the “shoot me, not the other guy” suit).

In the case of Japan, there was no choice. Your philosophy would have had us sit out World War I and World War II. I submit that the world would have been a must drearier place without Great Britain, and the Evil One would have had free rein in the world, had we not gone in. 

“Killing, attempting to kill, or threatening to kill the innocent can never be justified, even if it means you yourself—also an innocent—will die.”

I cannot go that far in your philosophy.  If someone is going to kill one of my family, I will do whatever I can to kill him first.

Keep in mind that it takes two to make peace, but only one to make war.

PS: The anonymous poster pretending to be “Bob Hope” might do well to learn about putting URL links in his posts, and perhaps even summarizing.  I have no idea what his long-winded tomes say - they’re far too long to wade through.

@ Richard A :

“Mr. Akin wisely avoided speculating upon the conditions of the individual souls involved before the Judgement Seat of the Almighty. He confined his discussion the behavior under review and the known teaching of Christ as revealed through Scripture and the magisterium of the Church. Might I commend to you a similar humility and avoid speculation on the state Mr. Akin’s soul?”
- you might, but you wont receive it.  Johnny did NOT confine his discussion to the behavior under review.  You and Johnny seem to be equally ignorant and filled with self-love.

“I am told that the decision to have an abortion is extremely difficult. Difficult or not, it is still gravely wrong, and is gravely wrong even if I make that determination from the comfort of my fat easy chair. That little bit of ad hominem was unworthy of the participants and the discussion up to now.”
- it was not ad hominem, it parallels of what Johnny does with the subject.  As for your abortion reference, it only shows your ignorance of the point I was making.

“Mr. Akin opened a reasonable discussion, which it is necessary for thoughtful Americans to have, as we (our country) deliberate the most effective ways to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry amongst societies which appear to be eager to use them indiscriminately.”
- righ, use them indiscriminately…. like Johnny’s “deliberately” your perspective of reality and history is filled with ignorance

“It would be best for the United States, publicly, to declare that we ourselves had it in our power to use these weapons and drew back when we confronted the enormity of the crime such a use would have been.” That is not now the approach we can take. The best we can do is to show that, having used these weapons ourselves, we have drawn back in horror at what we have done and resolved that neither we nor anyone else should have such power at our disposal. That will be much more difficult, obviously, without manifesting a great deal of hypocrisy, but has to start by forming a general societal opinion that this was an enormous crime.”
- right.  So, if I walk up and begin beating and raping your family while holding a gun to their head you would stand back and declare that though you had the power to shoot me you chose not to out of horror…

“The use of the atomic bombs, while clearly effective against such military targets as the cities possessed, showed also a clear willingness not to care about the severe destruction of neighboring non-military personnel and structures.”
- this is a window into your heart, and the hypocrisy of your above words; to say the use of the A-bomb demonstrated a “clear willingness not to care about the severe destruction of neighboring non-military personnel and structures” is proof of your willingness to participate in EVIL – it’s EVIL to promote a lie, calumny, against men you know little to nothing of the disposition of their soul – but by your doing so we get to see the disposition of yours and your deep ignorance.

“Bob Hope has pasted another of his interminable and incomprehensible posts. I exempt him from the above observation that the discussion has been a worthy one among the participants so far.”
- what an ignorant, arrogant, un-Christian person you are Richard.

@ Red_Beard:

“My biggest point to you is …..I won’t quibble about whether or not this inconsistency (need to find a stronger word than that) is hypocrisy, that definition requires me to know what you actually believe.”
No you do not know what I actually believe.  And my form is not inappropriate.  Only idiots and children believe that “the civility of man” is appropriate in all circumstances.  Christ took a whip to the money changers in the temple and he very “nu-civilly” told Peter to get behind him – in fact calling Peter “satan”.  Clearly Christ new Peter wasnt satan, but Christ new the importance of not sugar-coating things when man is on a path toward satan.  Remember, the women were left outside the wedding feast wailing in the night and Christ said “he would not know them”.
The false Charity and false Love of liberal humanism/feminization has gravely led many away from the the Faith.
I condemned no one and merely presented to Jimmy, and to those of you who do not understand the grave errors you are making, the judgment and errors they are making in mirror form.
You’re pointing at the mirror, and are too blind to see the image in it.

I think a lot of the disagreement over this issue started with calling it a “war crime”. That term has still not been defined nor has Mr. Akin rephrased his accusation. It is fine to say that in hindsight it was a grave error, it is quite another to judge and convict those decisionmakers. We have no way of knowing the minds, hearts and souls of those involved no matter how many quotes you pull out to support either side of the argument. A quote can only give you someones thought at a particular moment in time. It is very hard to know if that person’s mind changed before or after that moment, so it is unfair to judge based on that as well.

I cannot help but conclude that by calling it a war crime and terrorism that the people involved are being called war criminals and terrorists. We can argue about whether dropping these bombs was just but I have a problem with calling these folks terrorists or war criminals. We can determine that it was unjust using the 20/20 vision of hindsight without convicting them war crimes or terrorists. I don’t think they deserve that when you look a the whole picture or perhaps they don’t deserve it because none of us can see the whole picture. I believe that in hindsight it might not hold up to Catholic moral teaching but it is hard to imagine another course of action even if we were to be presented with the same scenario today. Pacifists don’t run the military, the military’s job is to defend us and it is an ugly job sometimes.

I have read all the post’s but I don’t think I have seen answer to this question: Did Popes Pius XII, John Paul II or Benedict XVI condemn the bombings as war crimes at anytime? Or did they point out the grave nature of such an action and caution for the future? Sorry if it is in here somewhere but some posts are so long info. gets buried.

Richard A, I don’t give a hoot as to what Ike or Nimitz thoght about nuking Japan. They didn’t have the responsibity of deciding how to end it all. The bombs shorted the war and prevented thosands of deaths on both sides that would have occured if we would have invaded Japan.

“”“I cannot go that far in your philosophy.  If someone is going to kill one of my family, I will do whatever I can to kill him first.”“”

So, would you kill someone else’s innocent family to achieve this end?

This is a wonderful article, Mr. Aikin - and for a follow up, folks might want to take a look at this - http://www.rtjournal.org/vol_1/no_1/no_1pdf/wetmore.pdf - which discusses the Japanese response to the bombing of Christian/Catholic Nagasaki, and the question, “Why did God allow this tragedy?” - It’s quite interesting. One point the author makes was a quote from ‘Gaudium et spes’ (written in 1965): “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 weapons is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern weapons – especially atomic, biological or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes.” Apparently it doesn’t matter if use of a weapon of mass destruction shortens a war or saves lives - it’s still a crime against “God and man”, and unequivocally condemned. That means completely, totally, and without reservation. In no circumstances is it even a little bit ok. No, you can’t use atomic bombs on cities. Not even if you think it will help in a certain situation. Appalling that anyone would think so. And would need a quote from a Pope to tell them that. Do we need a photo of some melted eyeballs in a child’s head to go with it?

Hey, are there any moderators out there?  I’m one of many getting tired of “Bob Hope’s” thread-dumping.  Anyone willing to delete his posts?

Bob - maybe you could just post a link to Sean Penn’s burbling? and indicate why you think it’s so fascinating in a simple line or two? Notice I didn’t copy and paste all six pages of the PDF document I referenced…. I posted a link. Try reading it, by the way - it was a fascinating article, regarding the Christian reaction to the bombing of Nagasaki. http://www.rtjournal.org/vol_1/no_1/no_1pdf/wetmore.pdf

Should a Christian Bear Arms?

Consulting any basic history of the church shows that the vast majority of the early church did not think so.  Many reasons have been cited for this refusal to bear arms.  Some propose that it was due to the idolatry of the Roman army.  Others have suggested that, at least when it came to the army, it interfered with the Sabbath-keeping of the earliest Christians.  These are not the reasons given by the early apologists such as Origen, Justin and others.

For these early believers, the issue seems to have been much more a concern related to the teachings or ethic of Christ.  Reading the Sermon on the Mount leaves little doubt:
•      “Blessed are the peacemakers, they shall be called children of God.”
•      “Do not resist the one who is evil.  If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer him the left also”
•      “Pray for your enemies…. that you may be like your Father in heaven”

The New Testament is filled with many other admonitions such as, “The Son of Man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” “If your enemy is hungry, feed him.  If he is thirsty, give him a drink.”  “If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight….”  “Our weapons are not carnal….”  There are many other passages that speak of the Christian’s call to the renunciation of violence and the way of peace.

There are, indeed, soldiers mentioned in the New Testament who became Christians.  What happened after their conversion is unclear (a point often ignored by proponents as well as opponents of pacifism).  Undeniably, there is no direct injunction given to soldiers regarding military service subsequent to conversion in the New Testament.  We do know that there are clear references to Christians in the military by AD 175.  This does not, however, seem to be normative.  These are quoted as representative samples of many writings and recorded sayings of the early Christians (second-fourth century):

•      “Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaimed that he who takes the sword shall also perish by the sword?” Tertullian
•      “For we no longer take up ‘sword against nation’ nor do we ‘learn war any more,’ having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader.” Origen
•      Cyprian, (martyred in A.D. 258) puts it bluntly, “If a murder is committed privately it is a crime, but if it happens with state authority, courage is the name for it.” Cyprian believed Christians “are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves.” Referring especially to capital punishment he stated, “It is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” 
•      “I cannot serve [as a soldier], for I am a Christian.” Maximilian

Many will point to the Old Testament passages where Israel was enjoined to holy war.  From my perspective, this is a point of very evident discontinuity with the position of the New Testament.  Also, let us remember that ancient Israel was, in many respects, a theocracy.  From a Christian perspective, there are no longer any true theocracies.  Christ’s Kingdom knows no national borders.  Sadly, some have wrongly thought of the United States as a Christian nation.  The idea of a Christian nation is foreign to the New Testament, an import by those who desperately want to see righteousness tied to legislation and morality decreed by politicians.  Listen carefully to the rhetoric of civil religion and one can hear echoes of Moses and Joshua.  Unless the plain sense is twisted beyond recognition, one will not hear echoes of Christ and the apostles, who identified themselves with a citizenry “not of this world.”  The call is clearly other worldly.  It is futile to insist on continuity between the civil code of Israel and the moral call of both Christ and the Old Testament prophets.  The Old Testament commands the killing of disobedient children, spells out punishments and penalties for various crimes, and sets forth the principle “eye for eye; tooth for tooth.”  While this represents a vast improvement in that the injunction limits revenge, the notion is still directly contradicted by Christ.  The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews reminds us that in the Old Covenant, the people moved in types and shadows, but “the reality belongs to Christ.”

From my perspective, the New Testament declares Jesus Christ is God among us.  The Sermon on the Mount becomes the manifesto for the New Kingdom; a Kingdom “already but not yet.”  For the believer, the Kingdom ethic is NOW.  In the Kingdom coming, it will be for all.

“God is love.” That seems clear enough.  The apostle did not want to leave us in the dark about what love is:
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians. 13:4-7)
I leave it to you to ask yourself if war and killing are compatible with Paul’s description of love.

I’m pro-life because I see God as pro-life.  It is ironic that the very Christians that clamor so loudly against abortion shout the loudest for capital punishment and military might.  To me that seems like a very inconsistent pro-life stance.  God is life affirming.  It has been mentioned that “eye for eye; tooth for tooth” is a part of the civil law code set forth by Moses.  Christians in favor of capital punishment and institutionalized hate (war) are quick to point out that “if a man sheds blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”  Again I ask, how can this be squared with the fact that Jesus quoted the EXACT scriptures dealing with retribution (“eye for eye”) in the Sermon on the Mount and clearly refuted the notion?  As a Christian, I am forced to ask, who is the better interpreter of the mind of God, Moses or Christ (assuming that Moses does recommend revenge and retaliation—something I’m not so sure of at all)?  If, Christ is indeed God among us, the answer is obvious.  Revelation is progressive and reaches its pinnacle in the words and example of the Master.  How can one be pro-life and support organized killing, revenge, and methods of death?

Someone will surely say, “What if a given war is just?”  I cannot answer that except to say the teachings of Christ appear absolute.  My concern is with following Christ.  In the same passage (Romans 12) where Paul directs believers not to do wrong to an enemy, he tells us that God will repay.  God is just.  Does this imply that Christians are to pray and do good in the face of national threat; to work for peace instead of resorting to violent resistance?  That’s exactly what the evident conclusion seems!  Sound radical?  I challenge you to find a more radical figure than Jesus Christ!  Are we first citizens of this or that nation, or is “our citizenship in heaven?”  If commanded by presidents or kings to kill, let us say with the apostles “We must obey God rather than men.” 

This is a hard word.  But discipleship is costly.  Jesus said that no one could be his disciple apart from denial of the spirit of the world (hate, hedonism, and death) and taking up the cross and following him.  God reconciles God’s enemies and we are “ambassadors of reconciliation.”  To hold to a larger hope of the restitution of all things and take a human life are not compatible.  Christ calls us to peace.  He calls us to be peacemakers.  How will we respond? 
Speaking of war, George Fox said, “The Spirit of Christ by which we are led is not so changeable so as once to command us from a thing as evil and then to move us unto it.”  Have we been truly called by that Unchangeable Spirit?  Do we trust God, as soldiers of an army that sheds no blood, or do we trust in the human wisdom and the sword of iron instead of the Sword of the Spirit?  What would Jesus do?  It is ultimately the character of God as revealed in Christ that is our standard. 

Instead of trying to “mix” Jesus and Moses and create a teaching foreign to words of either of them, we need to recognize the “shadow” and the “reality.” Let us look to the character and intent of God as revealed in Christ.  In the Sermon on the Mount, after telling us to love and do good to our enemies, Jesus tells us that, at least in some measure, that is being “perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.”

Such was and is the base that informs my thinking.  Where did I derive all of this?  That is a simple answer.  It all started with reading Bonhoeffer.  Reading The Cost of Discipleship as a young man had a powerful impact on me.  The notion that Christ really meant what he said, seemed to be the long awaited solution.  It provided me with the highest justification for a consistent ethic of peace.           

Hitler’s Nazi regime has been recognized as one of the most scandalous aberrations to make an appearance in modern times. Surprisingly, when Hitler first came to power, he was welcomed by many German clergy and laity. To really begin to understand the place of Bonhoeffer and the situation in which he found himself, one has to have a basic understanding of the German Confessing Church.  It is hard to explain the acquiescence of the German Christians to the Nazi state.  Many pious Germans believed that Hitler would bring spiritual renewal because he talked about traditional values, spoke of God, openly declared his interest in religion and his belief in the Bible. Some church leaders declared Hitler’s ascension to power a direct intervention of God’s mercy.  The fear of a Communist takeover was widespread and many Christians looked to the state, the Nazi state, for their defense.
When I look at the idea of the just war, it is easy to see a certain bankruptcy in that position.  First, even the framers of the doctrine, such as Augustine, recognized that it meant an exception to the rule for Christians rather than the rule itself.  It is a difficult test.  It calls for a dispassionate use of violence, which I have never been convinced has any basis in reality—anthological, psychological, nor spiritual.  At any rate, human nature being what it is, combined with the nature of modern warfare, one has to ask, even if a just war was once feasible, how could it possibly be so now?  The answer seems clear enough.

Realizing the stance of the apostolic church as a whole, the tendency is to simply make a clear break between “the world” and “the church.”  Christians do not live in the world.  But in this, they are, at best, inconsistent, for they make use of the benefits and protection provided by the world.  They are selectively not of the world.  It was a satisfactory answer for me once, it is not now.  I am compelled to ask the question, Is force, even deadly force, always wrong? 

Honestly, I am not sure.  It is clear that Romans 12 and 13 make a clear case for force in the world and even speak of the state’s police action as a “service to God.”  Yet at the same time, Paul is quick to call Christians to a higher standard of love.  The reality of it all, I think, is that the entire issue is not sufficiently clear for this to become a measure of spirituality.

What then?  Do I declare that Augustine really is right and that the Apostolic Fathers, made a grave mistake?  My understanding of the authority of Christ and the church does not allow me to do that.  Yet, there is a path, a road, taken by many sincere fundamentalist believers summed-up well on the bumper sticker, “God said it.  I believe it.  That settles it!”  That is simply too simplistic, not to mention the presumption and pride that is involved in such a position.  Strange, but the two views, that represented by the Christian pacifist as well as that represented by those of the Christian right, are in this respect, virtually identical.  They are unyielding, unbendable, and fairly condemning of those who disagree.

I will say that I stand by the usefulness of Augustine’s test as a starting place.  If a Christian makes a choice to resort to arms, that decision needs to be addressed from the vantage point of the eight dimensions Augustine calls us to investigate:  Is there just cause?  Is the intention right (upright)?  Is this the last resort in dealing with evil?  Is there no other way?  Is the action taken personal, or is it declared by a competent (please note the word) authority?  In view of the cost of suffering and death on all sides, is there a real probability of success?  Are the goals proportional?  In other words, is the goal pursued really worth the cost involved?  Are the means proportional?  Is “carpet bombing,” the use of biological agents, the possible escalation to a nuclear exchange, the use of terrorism (surely the US doesn’t engage in terrorism, or support terrorist regimes!), acceptable now or ever?  Does the action discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, or perhaps even between the innocent and the evil?  Is someone from the enemy camp automatically evil?  Is it that simple?
As has been stated, these guidelines were predicated on the notion that a view more closely akin to pacifism is the normative stance for Christians.  Augustine and those who have truly followed in his footsteps have recognized that a resort to arms is a strange position for a believer.  It is shaky ground.

Hey Joe, not only is it pointless to whine over Hiroshema and Nagasaki, it’s stupid to bawl abot the bad gys getting their just deserts. Fifty years from now Akin’s son or grandson will be whining that we bombed some Islamic tyrant into a dng heap. We shold live that long!

“”“If Jimmy and those who agree with him want to demonstrate some real moral courage, they should use their rhetorical gifts to oppose Iran’s stated desire to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons”“”

I do all the time!  I totally agree with you on this issue.

“”“Discussing something that happened 65 years ago is pointless.”“”

Not exactly a rational argument.  Has everything worth talking about that ever happened occurred less than 65 years ago? 

That being said, if you don’t feel like talking about it or reading about it, don’t.

Can someone explain this to me.  If the “crime” involved here is killing noncombatants in the course of executing a military action, what, if anything, does this have to do with a nuclear device as opposed to a conventional bomb?  Which is better, killing thousands with 1 atom bomb or killing thousands with thousands of conventional bombs?  I think the result is the same.  Therefore, why is the US singularly guilty of this crime?  Bombing strategic cities was the method our enemies chose first.
Further, the only military organizations in WWII that “targeted” civilians were, in fact, the Imperial forces of Japan and the Nazis.  I am not sure what is more disturbing here, the notion that the intent of bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was from start to finish an attempt to kill civilians (which it objectively was not) or the notion that the Japanese and Nazis were the victims of war crimes rather than the perpetrators (which is so utterly absurd it should be classified as insane).  What the author really means to say here is that war itself is intrinsically evil.  He would have lay down and give up rather than defend ourselves.

@Jason

“”“If the “crime” involved here is killing noncombatants in the course of executing a military action, what, if anything, does this have to do with a nuclear device as opposed to a conventional bomb?”“”

Add the word deliberate and you got it.

“”“Which is better, killing thousands with 1 atom bomb or killing thousands with thousands of conventional bombs?  I think the result is the same”“”

As long as both groups of innocents were deliberately killed, then the means of the act are the same and we can look at the ends, the death count.  Both acts are immoral based on means, death counts are equal, it’s hard to argue that one is much worse than the other.  The thing is, that you don’t judge an act just by the ends.

“”“I am not sure what is more disturbing here, the notion that the intent of bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was from start to finish an attempt to kill civilians (which it objectively was not)”“”

The argument Jimmy puts forward is that nuking a city is an act whose means is the indiscriminate destruction of the city.  That indiscriminate destruction, is by its very nature an attack on innocents, not just an attack on military targets with a lot of collateral damage.  Feel free to disagree about the means of the act, but please make an argument rather than a declaration.

“”“or the notion that the Japanese and Nazis were the victims of war crimes rather than the perpetrators “”“

No one said that you can’t be both a perpetrator and a victim.  No one lessens the evil that the Japanese military has done.  As Christians, we can fight a just war, but we must fight that war justly.  We don’t get to be a little evil just because our enemy is worse.

“”“What the author really means to say here is that war itself is intrinsically evil. “”“

Nope, you can fight a just war in a just manner.  I like to think that the US does this the vast majority of the time.  When it fails to, it needs to be corrected.

“”“He would have lay down and give up rather than defend ourselves.”“”

This is just an ad-homenim attack.  It doesn’t follow based on any of his statements.

Right on, Jimmy! Also to be condemned (maybe you’ve already pointed this out) is our policy of nuclear deterrence, which involves the threat to bomb civilians in cities.

@Joseph

A vacuum is where you can use your reason to work out your principals.  Call it practice.  Then it comes time to apply it today.  So now that we know the principals, don’t deliberately kill innocents, then let’s stand together on that consistent ground to denounce Iran’s threat to do just that. 

If these are the grounds you’re standing on, I’ll be glad to stand with you.

If a blog post is on topic X, I don’t think you can really criticize it for not being on topic Y.  That’s just another post for another day.  Jimmy, I wouldn’t mind seeing a blog post on Iran. (Topic Y)

“”“First, as this thread seems to indicate, nobody wants to get out of the vacuum to apply the principles they’re discussing.”“”

This is a thread on a topic.  It is only reasonable that those on this thread discuss that topic.  It’s why the thread exists.  It isn’t fair to assume that people aren’t willing to apply these principals to other topics.  Frankly, I’d be worried if many did as there seems to be a lot of consequentiallism.

“”“Second, and most importantly, Iran doesn’t give a damn about murdering innocent civilians. What does the world do when faced with that kind of threat, one that isn’t ameliorated by mere words? “”“

No idea.  We haven’t done much of anything yet, which I find abominable.  It sounds like you are very passionate about the issue of Iran, and I don’t want to dampen that.  Just make sure it doesn’t prevent you from treating other topics fairly.  It is because we have a clear understanding of morality that we are able to point at Iran and know that their desire to kill innocents is wrong.

“”“Stating the patently obvious serves nobody. “”“

Tell that to the people on this thread who argue that the ends justify the means.

I’m sorry you’re angry, but your anger is misdirected.  At the very least, it doesn’t have anything to do with the topics at hand.  Go write something about Iran and submit it to Catholic papers.  See if they print it.  I’d like to read it.

Wait just a minute, here.

Jimmy, you say: “Because the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil, it is never morally legitimate to target innocent civilians, even in wartime. ... Furthermore, to threaten to do something intrinsically evil is itself intrinsically evil, and to threaten—by words or deeds—to target civilians is intrinsically evil and cannot be done under any circumstances. You cannot hold innocents as hostages to another goal, however noble or lofty it may be. ... [This shows] the fundamental conflict between Catholic morality and the position of those trying to justify the targeting of civilians due the exigencies of wartime or as the “lesser evil” compared to what would otherwise happen.”

Agreed. Your statement of the moral principle is sound.

However, you conclude—you flatly assert—that the U.S. dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were morally evil acts.

It is one thing to state the moral principle.

But to apply that principle to the particular U.S. action and say that the U.S. action falls on the wrong side of the principle requires that we KNOW with MORAL CERTAINTY that the U.S. action does fall on the wrong side of it.

How could we possibly know that, with sufficient certainty?

Well, one way would be if the U.S. action could not be explained in ANY OTHER WAY than through morally illicit motives, prohibited by the aforementioned moral principle.

But: You previously acknowledged that there WERE, in fact, other plausible motives (e.g. the military targets, or the ability to demonstrate that all Japan’s military resources could be destroyed at will and that the Japanese were helpless to prevent it).

So since there are other plausible motives, the “There Is No Other Explanation” argument cannot stand. You must therefore adopt a different approach: You must argue that the U.S.‘s motives were the illicit ones, freely adopted, and not the licit ones.

To achieve sufficient moral certainty to flatly state that the U.S. leadership were morally guilty in this area, I think you must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that these perfectly plausible and morally licit motives were not either:

(a.) the U.S. leadership’s sole motives; or,
(b.) the U.S. leadership’s primary motives, with the morally illicit motives being present, but being acknowledged to be morally evil and thus a temptation which, while quite tempting under the circumstances, would not ultimately change the outcome (that being to drop the bomb, for the right reasons).

The alternative to (a.) and (b.) is (c.), which is: The U.S. acknowledged and embraced the motive of destroying the noncombatant citizens, thinking it not a temptation which distracted them from their proper duty of destroying Japan’s military but, instead, a bonus.

Your argument, Jimmy, therefore depends on you presenting evidence that the motive of the U.S. leadership was not (a.) (which I think unlikely) nor (b.) (which I think most likely), but (c.) (which I think plausible, but less likely than (b.)).

Do you have evidence, which goes to motive, which is sufficient to flatly assert moral guilt?

It seems to me that the wording of the Potsdam Declaration could go either way. But I acknowledge that, of what I have read on the topic—admittedly little—I have read nothing to-the-point: Nothing which spells out motives unambiguously. Have you? Do you have evidence that the motive was, in fact, (c.)?

P.S. I could also add that the U.S. leadership, had they suffered from bad moral catechesis in their own backgrounds, might have done an immoral act but not be entirely morally liable for it, even if their motive was (c.). But speculating about the state of Truman’s soul immediately after the decision is not the point of this article…and anyway if someone has read the article then THEY, at least, DO know the correct moral principle, NOW if not before, and are thus without excuse in their own future decisions. That, in 2010, is the important thing.

Doggone it, I put skipped lines between those paragraphs. Why didn’t they show up?

Sorry for the bad formatting in the immediately preceding comment post, folks.

@Red_Beard: You are a hoss! I haven’t been able to read the thread from the point I left it so I don’t know if your questions have been answered or not. I’m just awed by your willingness to stay in and swat consequentialist flies and hijackers. Lacking your fortitude, I’ll have to leave it with you and check back in a couple days from now. God’s best to you.

On the topic of motive, I should probably add the following item.

It comes from the War Department’s minutes of the post-Nagasaki ongoing discussion about whether to drop additional atomic bombs on Japan, as they became available, if the Japanese did not surrender. The relevant discussion was between General Hull and Colonel Seaman, August 13, 1945.

In it, Hull asks, in relevant part: “...should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like?” Seaman answers: “Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.”

That ambiguous answer admits of at least two interpretations: (1.) Seaman is willing to contemplate use of the bomb for destroying industry, to induce terror or despair, and the like, and wants to use it partly for that effect, but mostly for the “tactical” (legitimate military) use. (2.) Seaman is acknowledging the fact that no matter what they do, another bomb will have a psychological effect, but only intends to use it for tactical purposes. He will not go out of his way to prevent the psychological effect, and it’s going to be there regardless, but his focus is tactical.

In any event this doesn’t constitute a clear embrace of morally illicit motives, and shows that the primary or driving intent was a morally licit one.

I acknowledge, however, that this may have been a change-of-motive post-Nagasaki. Nothing in the above quoted material bears on the motives of the U.S. leadership in dropping the two bombs that actually were dropped. If THAT evidence exists, and if it shows the illicit motives were embraced, then I will drop all my objections and concede Jimmy’s point, that the U.S. decision was a grave moral evil.

@R.C.

It seems to me that your arguments are only in response to the motives of the act as apposed to the nature of the act.  It seems as though the CCC has described the nature of this act (the means) as immoral.  Motives are part of judging the act, (intent, circumstances, and means, if I remember correctly)  If any one of these is immoral makes the act immoral. 

So we can’t read people’s souls, and there is a legitimate possibility that the intent was not immoral.  We’ve heard arguments that the circumstances might not have been immoral.  The real issue comes down to whether or not the means themselves where immoral.  The CCC seems clear to me (and oddly enough, it gets clearer every time a consequentialist calls me a commie or a pacifist. That’s been the most entertaining part of this thread - I’ve never been called either before! :o)

@Bill

Thanks for the encouragement, though it’s the insults from consequentialists that really keep me going.  ;o)

Jimmy:

Thanks for the straightforward reply. Yes, I think it’s absurd to call you commie, pacifist, et cetera. Folk ought to do their due diligence on a public personality (sorry, but you increasingly qualify) before making such laughable and easily dismissed assertions.

In response to your reply, I’m rereading the thread and your previous article.

Of course you’re right about the means needing to be licit as well as the intent (and the circumstances have to be right, too). As you state, my last few notes focused on motive.

But I focused on motive because it seemed to me that YOU did: That your previous article in particular stated that if the U.S. intended to destroy Japan’s warmaking capacity (and sadly couldn’t do so without predictably but unavoidably killing a LOT of innocent civilians), then the act was licit: But that the U.S. was not in fact taking this stance, but was rather intending to kill innocent civilians for the psychological value.

In your previous piece, you stated: “But for purposes of argument… Let’s suppose that there were [legitimate military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki], and that they were proportionate in value to the massive loss of civilian lives and that there was no other way to get rid of them. oes that absolve the U.S. of guilt in these two bombings? No. ... The idea was not to end the war through the direct destruction of military resources in these two cities, nor was it to end the war by scaring Japan into thinking we might destroy all of its military resources. It was scaring Japan into surrendering by threatening (explicitly) to do this over and over again and inflict massive damage on the Japanese population.”

This is the assertion for which I felt you needed to present evidence.

In making this assertion, you granted for the sake of argument that the military targets were there, and proportional. It seemed to me you were saying that if that was the case, the attacks might have been morally licit provided the intent was licit. (But in fact you hold the U.S. intent was illicit, and the attacks therefore were evil.)

That seems, to me, like an argument focusing on intent.

Now, of course, when you “grant for the sake of argument” that the military targets were there, and proportional, you’re not granting that IN ACTUALITY. I gather you hold otherwise.

But then there comes another question: How does one gauge proportionality, when the question is whether the war will be won or not? I suppose it’s not in doubt that the war in question was a just one: We are just debating about whether the war should have been won by a land war or by the dropping of the atomic bombs.

Or are we debating whether the war should have been won at all?

For if (granting for the purpose of argument that the intent was licit after all) we rule out the dropping of the atomic bombs because the damage done to innocents is not proportional to the military result, what then? The alternative is the land invasion, where the damage done to the innocents is worse, and the overall death toll to combatants is worse. If the bombs were disproportionate, the conventional methods were more disproportionate.

So is your conclusion that the moral duty of the U.S. was to not win the war?

Or do you believe, contrary to what I have always heard was settled conventional wisdom, that the land invasion path to victory wouldn’t have been that bad after all? That it was less destructive than the bombs, and could thus be less disproportionate than they, and offer a morally licit path to ending the war?

Or am I missing some other detail? (That’s always possible.)

I suppose I should add that I’m not using the “but we could not have won the war otherwise” as an argument. Maybe we shouldn’t have won it, if doing so inevitably required immoral acts.

Instead, I am trying to nail down precisely what the argument was.

It seems to me that there’s some doubt that the intent was immoral;
It seems to me that there’s reason to believe that the military value of the attack (end of the war) was plausibly proportional to the civilian deaths;
It seems to me that there’s some reason to believe the alternatives were inferior (land war producing more civilian deaths and more combatant deaths);
You have already acknowledged in writing that there are plausible scenarios in which atomic weapons could be licitly used, so you are not asserting that there is something categorically different about particularly large explosions which makes them intrinsically evil as a means;

...so, in the trio of intent/means/circumstances, what remains?

*********************

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

*********************

Red_Beard is not Jimmmy!!!

Sorry for any confusion.  I’ll have to pick a less confusing moniker for future threads.  Sorry to shout, I just wanted everyone to see this.

*********************

P.S.> As it is, Jimmy’s beard is redder anyways.  :::hangs head in shame:::

*********************

Jimmy,

“”“Let’s suppose that there were [legitimate military targets in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki], and that they were proportionate in value to the massive loss
of civilian lives and that there was no other way to get rid of them.”“”

This is something I’m confused about.  If this is true, (i.e. the means could be moral) how does it square with the CCC’s condemnation?  Am I reading the CCC incorrectly?

The CCC does _not_ condemn nuclear _means_ as intrinsically (and thus always) immoral. It rather warns (2314) that “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” (i.e., acts of war “directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”). It is those _acts_, not the means, that are a “crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation”.

“”“The alternative is the land invasion, where the damage done to the innocents is worse, and the overall death toll to combatants is worse. If the bombs were disproportionate, the conventional methods were more disproportionate.”“” 

I think that the conventional approach is a group of acts.  Each act may or may not be proportional (I would hope that all are, of course).  Then the morality of each particular act is easier to figure out. 

The point is that the death counts don’t rule the day.  If the conventional attack kills 10X as many but no moral evil is committed (I know I’m dreaming here), then it is the better choice.  Note, evil is not tied to the ends (consequences) in a just war. 

If both acts are licit, then by all means go for the lower death count which is what you are arguing for.  If you are fighting a just war, use the just means at your disposal to win it, even if there are heavy costs.

@Carl & @R.C.

I must say, that it is a delight to talk to honest people on this matter.  You guys definitely have some good points.

Likewise, “Red_Beard - not Jimmy” ;)

@Red_Beard:

Whoa, sorry for mistaking you for Jimmy. Please take it as a compliment. You write in a reasoned, measured tone: Like he talks on the radio. (Admittedly his tone in writing these essays is a little bolder than either his radio talk or your posts: I chalked that up to the difference between thrice-edited prepared writing and off-the-cuff writing.)

And thanks for the vote of confidence re: “honest people.” I try to be.

Red_Beard (not Jimmy), I grant that from the point-of-view of the soldiers carrying out orders, it is true that “...the conventional approach is a group of acts.  Each act may or may not be proportional (I would hope that all are, of course).  Then the morality of each particular act is easier to figure out.”

But sin must involve an act of the will, else there is no sin. (And it must be in a grave matter with an understanding of its wrongness, and freely adopted, else it is not mortal.) We are discussing, it seems to me, whether the U.S. leadership committed a grave sin freely.

In that case, when did the act of will BY THE LEADERSHIP occur? Was it not at the end of a process of deliberating whether to drop the atomic bombs, or to do something other than to drop it? And are we not fairly certain that the “something other” would have been the land invasion? And would the go-ahead for the land invasion not have taken the form of a single decision to invade, after which most of the particulars would have been governed by generals and by officers in the field?

It seems to me that the leadership are morally responsible for their single high-level decision either to:

(a.) begin a land invasion in which the Japanese had already illustrated they could force the U.S. to pay as dearly as the Japanese for every inch of beach; or,
(b.) to begin a land invasion in which the U.S. had already illustrated to the Japanese that they could force the Japanese to pay far more dearly than the U.S. because the Japanese forces could merely be wiped out by single bomb-strikes ahead of each landing.

And while the Potsdam ultimatum acknowledges that this would result in “the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland,” it places the armed forces first and the homeland second. There are two ways to read this: Either “we’re going to destroy your military, and as a matter of fact, your homeland is sadly certain to be devastated in the process”; or, “we’re going to destroy your military and your homeland, and we’d still do either one if the other wasn’t possible.” The former is morally licit and the latter, not so. Pretty tough to peg moral evil on the leadership with any certainty, on that basis.

Granted that the myriad individual acts of field commanders in support of either path could have been sinful or not, I still think that the acts of will of the leadership boiled down to the one or two or three individual choices. At the top, the decisions were pretty binary.

“”“We are discussing, it seems to me, whether the U.S. leadership committed a grave sin freely.”“”

This is the difference between my part of the conversation and others’.  I am not really interested in discussing whether or not it was a sin, as we cannot know.  For a mortal sin to occur: 1. It must be gravely wrong 2. you must know it is wrong 3. you must freely and willingly choose to do it.

We can’t possibly know #2 or #3, so I definitely feel for those of you arguing about that.  All we can ever do is hope to understand if this qualifies for #1.  I don’t speak for anyone else on this, but that is the only part of the conversation that really interests me.

“”“At the top, the decisions were pretty binary.”“” 

I think you might be right as regards the decisions of the top brass.  I also think you have a good grasp on the licit & illicit interpretations of Potsdam. (well, the interpretations wouldn’t be licit, the ultimatum would…whatever ;o)

Oh, and I do take it as a compliment to be mistaken for Jimmy but I’m not sure he would!

The real question is: What would you do?

Lets make it easier and set up a situation.  Your community has been attacked. A group of people have come together for their own protection and survival.  A watch patrol has been set up.  While on watch you see a child coming toward your camp.  Oh, and there is a bomb strapped to this child’s back.  There is no way to evacuate your group. There is no one who can dismantle the bomb.  What do you do?

@Jodi,

Even if the child doesn’t understand, he is attacking you and action against him would be a matter of self defense.  He is an aggressor and not an “innocent” as the term is used in this post.  Obviously, he is most likely not culpable (innocent in a different use of the term).

If I were the man I want to be, I would walk to the child, walk him away from other people, and pray with him until we both went to meet God together.

To Red_Beard:
Who are you, the Flash, that you would be able to reach the kid and drag him away before he blew himself—and innocent civilians—up?

@Don,

Lighten up and re-read my post.  There details were vague and apparently you and I filled in the gaps in a different manner. 

The first paragraph in my post said that the child is an aggressor and therefore stopping him, even if that necessitates killing him, is a matter of self defense.

JodiPC:  “Oh, and there is a bomb strapped to this child’s back.”

That’s not a hypothetical.  It happened - more than once - in Viet Nam.  Except it was a hand grenade, not a bomb.  (Usually, they told the kid to keep the hand grenade hidden “and give it to the nice US soldier over there”.)

There are two outcomes to your scenario: 1.  The child reaches your people, the bomb goes off and many die.  2.  You - or someone - kill the child before he gets to your people.

In either case, the child dies.  The primary cause of that death is the person who sent him.  (As in the old WW II scenario, “You tell us the information, or I kill your friend, and you’ll be responsible”.)

I think the thread is starting to wander a bit.  As I understand it, the original statement was: it is not allowable to “deliberately kill innocent people” - and I assume that he means in the context of war.

Then the thread goes off into whether war is allowable or not (there seems to have been a few references to the idea of “just war”).

I certainly agree with that exact statement.  No one (with the exception of every other country throughout history) agrees that you can kill just anyone.  That’s why the uniform was adopted.  It’s the “shoot at me, not the other guy” suit.  Unfortunately, there will always be exceptional exceptions (Lt Calley in Viet Nam), but we do understand that those things are not a matter of policy.

We have even taken that idea so far that we’ve tried and convicted soldiers in Iraq for treating prisoners in a way that during WW II would have been considered “hospitality” rather than “torture”.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no one will ever convince me that it was even wrong, let alone a sin.

Dresden is a different matter.

Re: Torture in US Armed Forces

“We have even taken that idea so far that we’ve tried and convicted soldiers in Iraq for treating prisoners in a way that during WW II would have been considered “hospitality” rather than “torture”.”

The inhumane treatment of prisoners (to include torture) has never been the policy of the US Government except on two occasions: The Philippines Insurrection and the GWOT. It is interesting to note that on both occasions the victims were either Catholic (in the PI) or Muslim (in the PI and GWOT). It is also interesting to note that the PI Insurrection was not defeated until the Colonial Governor (Taft) banned the torture of Catholics and Muslims by the largely Protestant US Armed Forces.

God bless

Richard W Comerford