The Catholic Church has chosen correctly and condemned such acts in every case.
Posted on 08/03/2005 1:05:28 PM PDT by Siobhan
Sorry, but Kokura would have got the drop had the clouds not covered it when Fat Boy got there. It was the primary target.
So what, may I ask is the difference, between a bomb and a really big bomb?
IMO, nothing whatsoever, while we are about war.
Bumpus ad summum
So let us consider for a moment the What if. If Kokura been the target it would have been equally an immoral and godless act which the Catholic Church would have condemned and which would have brought shame on the glorious name of the USA.
Actually, I heard it in interviews of two Enola Gay crewmen describing the flight.
And I disagree with my church on this one.Given all the facts and circumstances it was a more moral choice than not dropping it.
Then you are dead wrong.
Perhaps. But what if the church had to decide the question: Which is most moral: to drop the bomb and kill 45,000, continue the firebombing (80,000 in Tokyo alone), or invade and kill ten times more, which is most moral?
I think I'm right.
And, among other things, we can add: By the way Russia just declared war, destroyed Japanese troups in Manchuria and was on the way to the islands...
And you can be a Protestant too.
The Catholic Church condemns this definitively in Gaudium et Spes,(Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) Para 80:
"With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes, and issues the following declaration:"Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation."
It didn't destroy Mitsubishi nor the entire city along with its population, nor was it capable of doing so, nor was that its intention; it's aim was to convince the Japanese to end the war and save a great deal more innocent and combatant lives. And it accomplished its aim, for both American AND Japanese.
Would you include Tokyo and a hundred other firebombed cities in this as well?
And how do you think the church would answer my question posed above. The Church also has a just war doctrine and I think my answer fits more closely with it as well.
I would trust my church to act in the world in the most moral manner given the real circumstances and choices available.
I still think I'm right, the Church would choose right.
And, if you disagree, perhaps you can be a Protestant too?
{^_^}
The Church has condemned the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as well as the fire bombing of Tokyo. All of that is included in Gaudium et Spes. All of it is unaccetable and none of it meets a single criterion of just war. Those who propose scenarios that might have been acceptable under a just war theory have ventured that a total blockade of Japan was both possible and would have been quickly effective as the U.S. Secretary of the Navy during the War believed. While there are those who would not concur, it would be the most acceptable to moral theologians who adjudicate such theories and possibilities.
The Catholic Church has chosen correctly and condemned such acts in every case.
Even within what you admit is a great deal of the truth though it is garbled by spin spun originally after the deed by a cadre of questionable fellows in the Truman administration.
The Nagasaki atomic bomb was twice as powerful as Hiroshima. The claim of the Truman administration was that it was to neutralize Japanese military assets in Kyushu that were massing. The claim of military assets as the target in Nagasaki has always been maintained by those who defend the Truman administration. The lie of it is that the bomb didn't touch Mitsubishi, but it wiped out the Japanese Roman Catholic motherland, murdered thousands of innocent Roman Catholic children, women, men, lay, religious, and priests, and to top it off destroyed the largest Christian Church in Asia.
That you believe the Truman administration's actions condemned by Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council were justified and that you believe said condemned actions accomplished the goal of saving innocent and combatant lives whilst you acknowledge yourself to be Roman Catholic is a tribute to the enormous failure of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of America to teach anything at all at the parochial level in the last forty years whether it be general theology or the moral law. I am horrified.
Thank you for your response. I don't concur of course.
I don't concur based on these criteria: there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
When the Japanese have illustrated countless times they will die for the emperor - believed on the spiritual level that the emperor could not possibly be defeated and were completely dedicated to keep fighting and dying until the inevitable victory of god came to pass - a blockade could only result in the slow and painful annihilation of noncombatants throughout the empire - a great many more than those who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I believe that since even the horrors of fire bombing proved insufficient, a blockade would have only encouraged the emperor's ministers to delay, since the allied attack had turned weaker. If firebombing did not bring surrender, if Okinawa did not, if Hiroshima did not, a blockade would? No, respectfully, I think that fails to satisfy "serious prospects of success."
That the Secretary of the Navy thinks it will or might still doesn't obviate the view of those of equal or greater weight who disagreed.
In addition is the larger picture of Russia A) a much crueler combatant agains Japan and B) causing much more human suffering after the war had we not used the bomb.
For these reasons I believe it does meet the criteria of just war more suitably than a blockade, continued aerial bombardment or invasion, or doing nothing.
These were the choices and I believe the one made was the more moral decision and the one that resulted in the least loss of human life and the least human suffering both in its effect of ending the war and in its means.
So there is a lot of horror to go around. The difficult question is how to stop the horror and the Church constantly strives to be a force for just that.
My discussion is in keeping with this on its most fundamental teaching of our faith.
The lie of it is that the bomb didn't touch Mitsubishi, but it wiped out the Japanese Roman Catholic motherland…"
This is not a lie. It was targeted by sight through a brief hole in the clouds. These were not smart bombs. To think the U.S. intention was to kill Catholics, well… beyond the pale and beyond serious consideration.
You are correct that saturation and firebombing had been justified on very shaky military grounds. (Saturation bombing was a bit different - military targets could not be hit without it.) Our enemies of course felt no such need. But, yes, the military justification was really to cause the enemy the greatest harm and force his capitulation.
Now, there is one other possibility to end the war with less suffering still. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned it. It's only seen in hindsight, it may well have been impossible to execute, however, had a intensive effort been made, it could have brought an even better resolution to the horror.
So that I can understand your perspective on this subject better: Were/are you also opposed to the Reagan defense buildup, the Gulf War and the current War in Iraq?
thanks...
And they wonder why they are an increasingly irrelevant institution.
No wondering of any kind. That's just some mighty silly projecting on your part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.