IMDB plot summary description for 2008 movie "Descending from Heaven"

IMDB.COM ^ | 2008 | Puffdream

[DFG]

Claude Eatherly, who flew the re-con flight which authorized the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, spent the remainder of his life overwhelmed with guilt, made worse by being called a War Hero by everyone around him. Eatherly led a life of petty crime, passing hot checks, using stolen identification, etc. His status as a war hero made it difficult for the system to want to punish him for these "acting out" crimes, until he began to speak out in public against the atomic bomb.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree with what you said heartily --- I do --- until the last line. Reiterating universal, fundamental moral norms, "Don't deliberately destroy innocent human life" --- is exactly what the Church is supposed to do.

It's our job, the laity's job, in the areas of our competence --- politics, law, medicine, biological research, foreign and military policy --- to figure out how to do what we do in a way that does not violate fundamental moral norms.

It's all too common for clerics (think USCCB) to intrude into the laity's areas of competence. That we can rightly, and even hotly, object to.

But on the other hand, it's all too common for laypeople to say, "Get the Church out of the bedroom. The boardroom. The war room." (I don't think they even want religious leaders to go to the bathroom.)

In effect, they're advocating the Separation of God and Real Life. Like Teddy Kennedy's religious faith, which is reportedly so personal and private he doesn't even impose it on himself.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So it was OK when Hitler bombed London?"

No, that's just the point.

It's not OK to target innocent human flesh.

It's not OK no matter who does it.

Whether they do with with abortion, a bomb, or a baseball bat.

It's OK to blast Hitler and his monstrous military to hell; but not to go block by block through Hamburg.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, it’s practical atheism. Common enough.

[Antoninus]

No, that's just the point.

For the record, I agree with you. It wasn't ok when Hitler bombed London. And it wasn't ok for us to bomb Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. The only argument in our favor was "Well, they started it." That doesn't work for nations any more than 7-year-olds.

[steve86]

I felt a little bad because it must have seemed to you I was “telling” you to say it, which wasn’t my intent at all. Just making a philosophical statement really that individuals who put their bodies and souls at risk by giving into temptation need a few decades said for them (and are very fortunate if they receive them). I incorporated a prayer into my Rosary yesterday for the neighbor two doors down who apparently was taken away in the coroner’s van about the time I started the Rosary.

[NathanR]

Jos 6:21 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.

They did the same to the city of Ai as well. (Jos8)

Many of the dead would be called “innocent” today. War is not murder.

[Ramius]

Sorry... I don’t follow.

You asked if it was EVER OK. Yes, of course there are circumstances that can make it OK. You’ve already said as much yourself.

[allmendream]

“It's an awful responsibility which has come. We thank God that it has come to us instead of to our enemy and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.”

President Truman on the Atomic Bomb.

[steve86]

Millions of people lived and we kept Russia out of Japan. I’d say it was worth it.

Here where I live, about 27 miles from the facility where the Plutonium for Nagasaki was fabricated, I have heard quite a few opinions on the matter. Most emanating from former Hanford workers and their families mirror yours, as one might expect. Similar sentiment at Los Alamos, where my dad worked for a while, naturally. I hope y'all are correct; haven't made up my mind on this one and probably won't absent direct input from the Holy Spirit!

[safeasthebanks]

"The only argument in our favor was "Well, they started it."

The ONLY argument??!?!? Are you really this dumb, or just a flat-out liar? An honest person can reach a conclusion against having used the A-bomb without resorting to falsehoods such as yours. You lose all respect in this argument by posting drivel such as that.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, now I see what you were saying.

This is a hard topic to discuss, but I thank you for discussing it. Sorry for misconstruing your intent on that last one.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Let's see. How can I draw a rosary here:

+. . . . .

Hmm. Not quite.

Keep praying. Keep reminding me. I'm such a thud-head when it comes to remembering. :o/

[Mrs. Don-o]

Seriously, was that to refute what I wrote about Jericho, or to illustrate it with more examples? The Miracle Wars of the Hebrew Scriptures are not means to illustrate the common rules of war. They illustrate God's unique sovereignty.

War is not murder per se, if it was entered for just reasons and is conducted justly. The requirements of justice involve (among ther things) avoiding attacks on civilians, which, if intentional, are murder.

Jihad, for instance, is murder. One of the big differences between the Judeo-Christian ethic and the way of jihad, is that people who are serious about the Judeo-Christian ethic do not intentionally attack civilians, and jihadis do.

God is the Lord of Life. He can take anyone's life justly: in fact, we all die. All of us. He can order the destruction of Jericho just as He Himself destroyed Sodom.

Absent His direct command, though, if we decide we have that kind of authority over life, ourselves, we are guilty of the gravest kind of sin. Not only murder, but blasphemy; because God forbids the shedding of innocent blood.

[Petronski]

Answer the question.

[Petronski]

So it was OK when Hitler bombed London?

No.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here was the original question:

"Is it permitted for any reason directly and deliberately and intentionally to kill an innocent human being?"

The adjectives and adverbs are really important here. To examine the variations:

---

"Is it permitted for any reason directly and deliberately and intentionally to kill a guilty human being?"

(Examples: a deadly aggressor in a criminal or wartime situation, or a person justly convicted of a capital crime. Answer: under some conditions, yes.)

---

"Is it permitted for any reason indirectly and without willful intent to kill an innocent human being?"

(Examples: performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman who has uterine cancer, even though the baby is not yet capable of survival outside of the womb. Bombing a Hamas rocket-launcher site even though it's on the roof of a family residence. Obliterating the military and industrial and port facilities of Hamburg during WWII, even though the resultant firestorm will foreseeably spread to civilian areas. Answer: under some conditions, yes.)

---

"Is it permitted for any reason directly and deliberately and intentionally to kill an innocent human being?"

(Examples: Aborting a handicapped baby. Killing prisoners of war who have surrendered and have been disarmed. Killing everyone in a city indiscriminately. Answer: no.)

---

God help me, I would never answer yes to that last question.

One last question: does it sometimes happen that the situation is complex and changing rapidly, you're not sure of the facts, the options are all dreadful, and you have to make a quick decision under extreme pressure? I'm sure that happens. We must try not to kill the innocent. May God have mercy on us all.

Trying to work through this carefully. What say ye?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I believe authoritative judgments can be found in the teachings of the Popes when speaking repeatedly and clearly and in agreement with each other over the years, and the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, in union with the Holy Father, in accorance with Scripture, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Whew.

In sum: check your Catechism.

The whole context is worth a look.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jerusalem in the days of Hadrian. Guernica market-day bombing (w/ strafing of fleeing civilians.) Carpet bombing (1938) by the Condor Legion. Phnom Penh. Coventry. Dresden. Hiroshima.

A quick list, and not comprehensive, you understand. By no means comprehensive.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Answer the question."

Oops. Answer posted at #78.

[Ramius]

I think you’re trying to put too fine a point on it.

It sounds like you’re interpreting your question to mean “is it ever OK to kill an innocent person for no reason at all”. But that’s no dilemma. You make the question too easy. That’s cheating. :-)

For me the important word is still “any”. Can there be *any* reason? Yes, there can be circumstances where it is ~necessary~ to make a decision to kill an “innocent” person. Directly. Deliberately. Intentionally.

If it is necessary, that makes it permissible. Otherwise there’s nothing to be decided. Then the question becomes: What makes it necessary? What is a good enough reason?

IMHO: Stopping a war and avoiding a catastrophic invasion is a good enough reason.