Atonement and the A-Bomb

I cannot help but question your wisdom in printing the commentary “Effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Still Being Felt” by Catherine and Michael Pakaluk (Commentary & Opinion August 7-13). The writers may be highly educated, but their reasoning is very uninformed and misguided, to say the least.

I suspect they were not even born at the time. I was 16 years old and was very attuned to the Pacific War as I had two older brothers involved. Both fought on Okinawa and survived.

I very much doubt they would have survived the invasion of Japan. And make no mistake: The invasion of Japan would have been necessary as the Japanese people were ready to defend their country to the last man, woman and child.

I suggest the writers further their education on the Pacific War by reading War in the Pacific by Jerome T. Hagen, Brig. Gen. USMC Ret. Flags of our Fathers, written by James Bradley, the son of one of the survivors of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima, is another book that describes the Japanese will to fight to the last man.

To even suggest that I, a practicing Catholic, should feel guilty and consider the bombing a sin is very offensive to me.

ADELINO R. LORENZO

Tigard, Oregon

In “Effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Still Being Felt” (Aug 7-13), the Pakaluks proposal that, since Hiroshima, we are laboring under a “serious, unacknowledged national ‘sin’” suggests a collective guilt rejected by the Second Vatican Council. In the case of the Jews killing Jesus Christ, … “neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion …”

I submit that this same principle applies to World War II and the decision to drop the atomic bomb.

Therefore, the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of President Harry “the buck stops here” Truman (God rest his soul). Faced with a moral dilemma that would have resulted in the deaths of thousands of non-combatants either way, the president and his advisers made a tough decision in a war where Japanese atrocities were legendary (especially in China). As stated by Truman biographer David McCullough: “If you want one explanation as to why Truman dropped the bomb: ‘Okinawa.’ It was to stop the killing.”

What I'd like to know is this: Do the Pakaluks consider Harry Truman a war criminal? If yes, then say so plainly.

Unfortunately, they don't say much about the president's reasons except that MacArthur and Eisenhower opposed them, leaving the bigger question:

Why would he override his top generals? Arguments for dropping the A-bomb are elicited from dinner party interlocutors, but I'd much prefer an exchange with someone, like a George Weigel, who can hold his own ground against what amounts to revisionist history and blame-America-first thinking.

Similar arguments against dropping the A-bomb were made by Gar Alperovitz in his book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, and were succinctly answered by George Weigel in his articles “Vulgarizing Bad History” and “Blaming Harry.”

“The revisionist attack on Harry Truman and his advisers,” he wrote, “was less a serious effort to understand and assess the decision-making at the end of the Pacific War than a last-ditch attempt to salvage the claim that the Cold War was primarily the result of American anti-communism.”

I wonder how much of what drives the Pakaluks’ proposal for national sackcloth and ashes is rooted in the “ideological proclivities” of revisionists who prefer to blame America first, last and always.

ROBERT CALL

Puyallup, Washington

Regarding “Effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Still Being Felt” (Commentary & Opinion, August 7-13):

Catherine and Michael Pakaluk state that recently they “attended a dinner party with about 20 pro-life Catholic friends, and only four were confident that the bombings (of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were objectively immoral.”

I say to the Pakaluks: Thank God you have 16 pro-life friends with some sense. You say there was “no noteworthy cause” (in the 1960s) for an American culture today that has ”rampant divorce, abortion, contraception, promiscuity, pornography, homosexual activism and secularization.” Don't you think that the rejection of Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which foretold the spread of this malaise, was noteworthy?

The “teaser” headline on the front page, “Our National ‘Sin’” was, at best, a poor choice of words. Do nations sin? If yes, is the cure general absolution? Or is it that people sin, and the cure is individual confession? As for the column's conclusion: So then, if our nation were to admit that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a war crime, that would somehow be the cure for the culture of rampant divorce, etc., that we find ourselves in?

With apologies to the other four people at the dinner party who agreed with you, I think that assertion is quite a stretch.

As for the body of your essay and the argument over whether or not we should have dropped the bomb (as if we could change that now), we can exchange expert quotes and talk that over years of dinner parties and never change the past.

But if your real goal is to address the cultural malaise you so aptly describe that we find ourselves in, we're best to start with making sure every Catholic understands and strives to live the teachings of Humane Vitae, and that we make frequent use of individual confession when we fail. This action will change the future.

LOU BRUNO

Altamonte Springs, Florida

Editor's note: See this week's editorial.

Women Priests and St. Cloud

Your July 24-Aug. 6 issue featured an informative page-one story, “Activists Still Pine for Women Priests,” which highlighted groups within the Church still encouraging women's ordination to the Catholic priesthood. It also noted that the increase in activism prompts other Catholics to deepen their own understanding of the Catholic Church's teaching and to help explain that teaching to others.

Among the examples of activism and views supporting women priests, your story referenced a June 23 editorial in the St. Cloud Visitor, newspaper for the Diocese of St. Cloud, Minn., which encouraged ongoing dialogue on the topic and urged bishops to take the lead in the conversation.

As a matter of clarification, I would like to point out that the signed editorial was written by Joseph Young, a St. Cloud Visitor staff writer who was serving at the time as interim editor. That editorial did not and does not represent the opinion of the Visitor, nor of our bishop and publisher, Bishop John Kinney. Additionally, the bishop did not see and was not aware of the editorial before its publication.

In my conversations with him, Bishop Kinney has indicated that he wants our diocesan newspaper to be informative, open and balanced. At the same time he expects the St. Cloud Visitor to be unambiguously Catholic and to be clearly in support of official Church teaching.

In the Aug. 4 issue of the St. Cloud Visitor, as the paper's new editor, I have outlined the mission of our diocesan newspaper and our approach to a variety of issues. These include the editorial in question, the role of opinion in a Catholic newspaper and the Visitor's commitment to a clear expression of Catholic teaching in its pages. Your readers might want to know that this message is available on our diocesan website at stcdio.org/Visitor.

Thank you in advance for informing your readers of this, our “rest of the story,” and God's best blessings on your own important work in Catholic journalism.

PATRICIA LYNN MORRISON

Editor

St. Cloud Visitor

St. Cloud, Minnesota

Design and Discernment

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn expresses his opinion about the faith and evolutionary theory, and the educational-scientific establishment reacts anxiously (“God and Matter: The Evolution of the Evolution Debate,” Commentary & Opinion, August 14-20).

In the Tablet, our diocesan paper, we read very much the same story, but also read that prominent scientists are appealing to Pope Benedict XVI for a decision on the matter. While dissent from Catholic teaching flourishes in some Catholic universities, is this not a reversal of a trend? Unfortunately, papal infallibility does not extend to matters of science.

Darwin's theory to explain evolutionary reality is imploding before us. Some scientists are daring to think that there is no intelligent design in a theory of a universe without design. Or worse, believing they have not proved the universe has been intelligently designed, yet there are hidden within that universe pockets of intelligent design.

If there is random variation, there need not be teleonomy. However, in natural selection there must be some teleological quality, for without some such quality there is no selection. In fact, there is no theory of evolution. There are theories of evolution, and they are competing with one another for allegiance. In the meantime, Catholics should continue to pursue truth and evaluate scientific data with a sense of humor. As Chesterton said, “The only thing true about the missing link is that it is still missing.”

DEACON JOHN P. COFFEY

Brooklyn, New York

Fristian Bargain

Pertinent to the editorial titled “Betrayal” (June 12-18):

I am saddened by Sen. Bill Frist's schism from White House opinion on embryonic stem-cell research. He speaks of ethical and moral reasons for his departing from White House thought on this matter. His reasoning follows the skewed utilitarian logic that killing one to save many is justifiable. Due to the inevitable problems with utilitarian thought — i.e., those in power make the decision as to who lives and who dies for the good of society — the Church has always taught that it is never justifiable to kill (even one) innocent life to save many. The Church especially points out this truth when those being killed are the most vulnerable — those who cannot defend themselves.

All this is disturbing coming from Senator Frist, a physician. The Hippocratic Oath holds, in part: “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.”

Frist actually promotes killing human life in order to cure others. Isn't prevention preferable to curing? In other words, he is a medical quack — not only forgetting his oath but doing the exact opposite.

The Hippocratic Oath also says, “Above all, I must not play at God.” Indeed!

All I can say to Senator Frist, MD, is, “Physician, heal thyself.”

BILL PETRO

Toledo, Ohio

Corrections

The Register's Aug. 7-13 editorial correctly stated that four justices whose votes support Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republicans — but misstated the particulars. For the record, President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens and President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Also, a front-page report about World Youth Day in that same issue included a map of Germany and surrounding countries. The map was inaccurate, showing part of Germany over part of the Czech Republic and failing to identify the Czech Republic.

Due to an editing error, a story in the July 17-23 issue of the Register incorrectly described a tsunami “buffer zone” in which the Sri Lankan government bans repair or any construction. The correct distance is 656 feet (200 meters) on the east coast and 328 feet (100 meters) on the west coast.