Commemorating a Major U.S. War Crime

Friday was the anniversary of the U.S. Bombing of Hiroshima during World War II. Monday is the anniversary of its bombing of Nagasaki.

The explosion of the Fat Man atomic device over Nagasaki is pictured. It rose eleven miles into the sky over Ground Zero.

The important thing, though, is that it—together with the Little Boy device that was deployed over Hiroshima—killed approximately 200,000 human beings. And it ended the war with Japan.

It is understandable that many Americans at the time were relieved that the long burden of the bloodiest war in human history could finally be laid down. Many then, as now, saw the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a necessary step to preventing even more casualties.

However, some of the blogging being done to commemorate the attack is most unfortunate.

Consider Michael Graham, who wishes his readers a “Happy Peace Through Victory Day.”

Today marks the anniversary of the single greatest act in the cause of peace ever taken by the United States:

Dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. That one decision, that one device, saved more lives, did more to end war, and created more justice in the world in a single stroke than any other. It was done by America, for Americans. It saved the lives of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of American soldiers and sailors.

Euroweenie peaceniks and an annoying number of American liberals see the bombing of Hiroshima as a shameful act. What is it America should be ashamed for—defeating an enemy that declared war on us? Bringing about the end of a fascist empire that killed millions of people, mostly Asians? Preventing the slaughter of the good guys—Americans—by killing the bad guys—the Japanese?

I am not a Euroweenie or a peacenik or a political liberal or even someone opposed to the use of nuclear weapons in principle. I can imagine scenarios in which their use would be justified. I can even deal with the cheeky “Happy Peace Through Victory Day” headline.

It is true that, by instilling terror in the Japanese government, the use of atomic weapons prevented further and, in all probability, greater casualties on both sides.

Preventing further and greater casualties is a good thing, but as the Catechism reminds us:

The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties [CCC 2312].

It isn’t just a question of the goal of an action. The goal may be a good one, but the means used to achieve it may be evil. The Catechism states:

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes [CCC 2314].

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely acts of war directed to the destruction of whole cities or—at least—vast areas with their inhabitants. The only quibbling could be about whether this was “indiscriminate” destruction. Someone might argue (stretching the word “indiscriminate” rather severely and taking it in a sense probably not meant by the Catechism) that they were not indiscriminate attacks in that they were aimed at vital Japanese war resources (munitions factories, troops, etc.) and the only practical way to take out these resources was to use atomic weapons.

Mounting such a case would face a number of problems. One would have to show that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained such resources (not that difficult to show) and that these resources themselves were proportionate in value to the massive collateral damage that would be inflicted (a much more difficult task) and that there was no other practical way—like a more targeted bombing—to take them out (again a difficult task).

But for purposes of argument, let’s grant all this. Let’s suppose that there were such resources, 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.

You can see why in the logic that Mr. Graham used. It stresses the fact that the use of these weapons saved net lives. This was undoubtedly uppermost in the U.S. military planners’ thinking as they faced the possibility of an extremely bloody invasion of Japan in which huge numbers on both sides would die.

But notice what is not being said—either by Mr. Graham or anybody else: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained such important war widgets that without those widgets Japan would be unable to prosecute the war. Thus by taking out those military resources we could deprive Japan of its ability to make war.”

Neither is anybody saying something like this: “We needed to scare Japan into surrender by showing them that we could destroy all of their military resources. We needed to make them terrified of losing all their military resources so that, out of a desperate desire to preserve their military resources, they would surrender.”

These are the dogs that didn’t bark, and they are why this line of argument is a dog that won’t hunt.

The reason nobody says these things is that they were not the thinking behind the U.S.‘s actions. 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. In other words, to make them scared that we would engage in “the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.”

That means that, even if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had contained military resources that of themselves would have justified the use of atomic weapons (which is very hard to argue), our intention still was not pure. We were still using Japanese civilians as hostages to the war effort, still threatening to kill civilians if Japan did not surrender. That was the message we wanted the Japanese leadership to get—not, “We will take out your military resources if you keep this up,” but, “We will take out big chunks of your population if you keep this up.”

That meant that the U.S. leadership was formally participating in evil. It does not matter if the attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could (through some stretch of the imagination) be justified in themselves. The fact is that they were used to send a message telling the Japanese government that we would kill massive numbers of the military and civilian population, without discrimination. That message is evil, and to knowingly and deliberately send that message is to formally participate in evil.

Now, make no mistake. I’m an American. I’m a fan of the U.S. But love of the United States should not preclude one from being able to look honestly at the mistakes it has committed in the past. Indeed, it is only by looking at and frankly acknowledging the mistakes of the past that we can learn from them. Love of one’s country should impel one to help it not commit such evils.

Racial discrimination? Bad thing. Allowing abortions? Bad thing. Dropping nukes to deliberately kill civilians? Bad thing. Let’s try not to have things like these mar America’s future.

My grandfather designed and tested the bomb casing, the shell that held the atomic device. He has no regrets about using them and neither do I.

The Japanese slaughtered whole villages, raping and pillaging as they went, cutting a bloody swathe through the women and children of southeast Asia. Apologists will tell you that it was just a symptom of the war. Women and girls conscripted to service Japanese soldiers in the Joy Division undoubtedly feel differently.

The Japanese government was warned for a week prior to the bombs being dropped to evacuate the cities. They were told what to expect from the bombs. They were asked to surrender. They chose to ignore the warnings and continued fighting the war. Yet, we’re the bad guys. If there was any sense in people, they’d be angry with the people in the Japanese government who made the decision to ignore our warnings, thereby putting their citizens through the agony of being nuked. No one ever seems to reach that conclusion. Wake up and place blame where it belongs: on the Japanese government!

The fact is that those two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki took the fight right out of the Japanese people and, more importantly, the Japanese government. Those two bombs ended the war, which the Japanese had declared on us and other nations, siding with Hitler, thereby preventing any further casualties ON BOTH SIDES, which would certainly have numbered into the millions.

After dropping the bombs and after years of warfare, we were first on the scene to treat casualties, bury the dead, and rebuild their entire country. We rebuilt it better than before and gave the Japanese the tools they needed to thrive as an industrialized nation. With the bombs, we prevented further casualties due to protracted fighting and defeated a powerful fascist enemy whose goal was domination of Asia. Yet, the USA is somehow, to this day, held as monsters.

You’re welcome Japan.

“Indeed it is a lack of discrimiantion which is is the problem with city=target bombing, in that it treats military assets, noncombatant lives, and civilian values as equally disposable.”

The laws of war required that citizens be afforded the opportunity to flee before a city was bombarded. The first violation of this that I know of was Sherman’s bombardment of Atlanta.

I have always been taught that bombing of cities, and therefore civilians, was prohibited...HOWEVER if one side started doing it, those so bombed were free to retaliate in kind. Back then, they didn’t play that “no matter how bad you are, I have to fight with one hand tied behind my back” crapola.

A war crime is criminal in relationship to a law. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not violations of the laws of war as then construed, as the Japanese were the first to make war on civilians. A person may argue on moral grounds (wrongly) that those bombs should not have been dropped, but one cannot argue that it was criminal.

As has been elsewhere noted, the Japanese government was warned to evacuate, which was a great deal more than they accorded any of their victims.

Another thing is that no one really knew what the result of those detonations was going to be, so it is silly to assert that the intent was to kill large numbers of civilians. Personally, I think the bomb should have been dropped on the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, or wherever Hirohito happened to be on that day. It was a HUGE mistake to treat him with kid gloves, especially since it was motivated only by MacArthur’s desire to become “the Father of Japanese Democracy.”

The lesson to be learned from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is this: “Don’t start bloody wars of conquest for no better reason than stroking your own racism.” And I’m good with that.

“crime against God and man”

You are arguing that H and N were immoral, not that they were against the laws of war. They were not violations of the laws of war, and therefore may not truthfully be called “war crimes.”

“The problem is that there are a handful…of acts that are intrinsically depraved and cannot be justified by any conceivable circumstances…Thus the targeted OR intentional indiscriminate destruction of noncombatants is on the same plane as abortion, rape, and apostasy.”

Sorry, I believe that the Scriptures tell a different story.

Numbers (KJV)
21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Deuteronomy (Douay)
7:1. When the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land, which thou art going in to possess, and shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the Hethite, and the Gergezite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art, and stronger than thou:
7:2. And the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou shalt make no league with them, nor shew mercy to them:

Josue (Douay)
8:18. The Lord said to Josue: Lift up the shield that is in thy hand, towards the city of Hai, for I will deliver it to thee.
8:19. And when he had lifted up his shield towards the city, the ambush, that lay hid, rose up immediately: and going to the city, took it, and set it on fire.
8:20. And the men of the city, that pursued after Josue, looking back, and seeing the smoke of the city rise up to heaven, had no more power to flee this way or that way: especially as they that had counterfeited flight, and were going toward the wilderness, turned back most valiantly against them that pursued.
8:21. So Josue, and all Israel, seeing that the city was taken, and*that*the*smoke*of*the*city*rose*up, returned, and slew the men of Hai.
8:22. And they also that had taken and set the city on fire, issuing out of the city to meet their own men, began to cut off the enemies who were surrounded by them. So that the enemies being cut off on both sides, not one of so great a multitude was saved.
8:23. And they took the king of the city of Hai alive and brought him to Josue.
8:24. So all being slain that had pursued after Israel, in his flight to the wilderness, and falling by the sword in the same place, the children of Israel returned and laid waste the city.
8:25. And*the*number*of*them*that*fell*that*day,*both*of*men*and*women,*was*twelve*thousand*persons, all of the city of Hai.
8:26. But Josue drew not back his hand, which he had stretched out on high, holding the shield, till*all*the*inhabitants*of*Hai*were*slain.
8:27. And the children of Israel divided among them, the cattle and the prey of the city, as the Lord had commanded Josue.
8:28. And he burnt the city, and made it a heap forever:
8:29. And he hung the king thereof on a gibbet, until the evening and the going down of the sun. Then Josue commanded, and they took down his carcass from the gibbet: and threw it in the very entrance of the city, heaping upon it a great heap of stones, which remaineth until this present day.
8:30. Then Josue built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, in Mount Hebal,

“The Catholic Catechism puts it in terms of both Divine and Natural Law, meaning this is something knowable to the reason of any rational being. 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.’ ”

The CCC was published:

After VatII.
After WWII.
After the smoke of Satan entered the sacristy.
During the papacy of JPII.

Some of the things in the CCC have been defined by the ordinary magisterium, and therefore still require an assent of the will and intellect. That is, they are not infallible. The bit you quote is, I believe, in that category.

“Again, the fact that this is considered knowable to human reason, means that we cannot consider it contingent upon the contemporary state of civil, military, or international law.”

Two problems there:
1. I did not say that the morality was contingent upon law; I said that the legality was contingent upon law. You seem to be arguing that the legality is contingent upon moral judgment, in that you assert that its (for you) immorality makes it a crime. Reason requires that the legality and morality be considered separately.

2. My human reason tells me that Catholic teaching was much more reliable prior to VatII, WWII, the sixties, and the papacy of JPII. Earlier, pre-corruption teachings – and Holy Scripture – seem to support my contention that the destruction of whole cities *can*be* under some circumstances a justified act of war.

I therefore assert that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not among the “acts that are intrinsically depraved,” and I take great umbrage at that assertion.

You wrote:

1. I did not say that the morality was contingent upon law... Reason requires that the legality and morality be considered separately.

Legality is indeed to be distinguished from morality. However, in context I was not talking about secular statute law. Let me clarify: by "crime," I was speaking of grave moral wrong.

Do you really wish to take an explicitly anti-Magisterium position? If you wanted to make a case that the acts of an ecumenical council are null, you would have to extend your dissent back to quite a few pontiffs.

Consider the language with which the Council framed its verdict against target=city bombing:

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.

This wording makes the judgment a formal and solemn condemnation (“makes its own the condemnation” “issues the following declaration”) and reinforces its legitimacy with reference to previous papal authority (“already pronounced by recent popes”). This section is footnoted in the document as follows:

1. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), p. 291; "Therefore in this age of ours which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational to believe that war is still an apt means of vindicating violated rights."

2. Cf. Pius XII, Allocution of Sept. 30, 1954: AAS 46 (1954) p. 589; Radio message of Dec. 24, 1954: AAS 47 (1955), pp. 15 ff, John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 286-291; Paul VI, Allocution to the United Nations, Oct. 4, 1965.

This is solemn, and on the same footing as the declaration in the very same conciliar document which stated:

“For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”

Moreover, these two judgments are based on the same moral reasoning, namely, that the deliberate destruction of innocent human life is the crime of murder, and cannot be justified by any calculus of utility or benefit, however pressing.

Keep in mind, too, that those who pressed for the strongest condemnation of target=city bombing were the conservatives/traditionalists, e.g. Cardinal Ottaviani. He and his closest colleagues were considered the anti-novelty “regressives” at the Council, and it was they who wanted the Council to condemn, not just the use, but even the possession, of a strategic nuclear arsenal.

At the same time, those of a more liberal frame of mind, e.g. John Courtney Murray, were arguing for a policy of nuclear deterrence and even for the moral possibility of limited nuclear war. He was joined by the still more elastic "situational ethics" people who denied in principle the existence of "intrinsically evil" acts.

That pattern has held for subsequent decades: the hard-line conservatives ---Elizabeth Anscombe; Germain Grisez --- all of Grisez' pro-Humanae Vitae associates, there were/are a good number of them, John Ford, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, William May ---Brent Bozell the elder; Warren Carroll, historian and founder of Christendom College: all strong opponents of contraception, torture, sodomy, targeting of noncombatants, the intentional or objectively indiscriminate killing of the innocent whether by a bomb, abortion, or a baseball bat. What these people have in common: they admit the existence of exceptionless norms.

If I understand you correctly --- and please correct me if I'm wrong --- you have difficulties with this teaching. Difficulties are, well, difficult; and questions are legitimate. If I were in your position, I would think it more fitting to simply state “I have difficulties,” and “I have questions,” rather than to announce that I take umbrage at papal and conciliar teachings.

“However, in context I was not talking about secular statute law. Let me clarify: by “crime,” I was speaking of grave moral wrong.”

Okay, but the original article spoke of “war crimes,” which must be understood to mean crimes with reference to international law.

“Do you really wish to take an explicitly anti-Magisterium position?”

I don’t mean to imply anything about you personally, but we—you and I—have often seen that argument used by those who have infiltrated or taken over an organization and are trying to turn it upon itself. We Catholics are at liberty to question or even reject things that are not inerrant or infallible, especially where they contradict all that has gone before.

“If you wanted to make a case that the acts of an ecumenical council are null, you would have to extend your dissent back to quite a few pontiffs.”

I am not making a case that all acts of VatII are null. I do assert, along with many others, that abuses were perpetrated by theological leftists—those whom Pope Saint Pius X called “enemies of the church” in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis - On the Doctrine of the Modernists.”

“Consider the language with which the Council framed its verdict against target=city bombing:”

Consider the language Pius X used to describe such people in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

“2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.”

“this most Holy Synod makes its own the condemnations of total war”

There’s a problem with your argument. What is “total war?” Is it the bombing of a single city, or the laying waste of an entire country? Admiral Nimitz wanted to blockade the Japanese archipelago and starve every inhabitant. Would that have been “total war?”

The bombings of H and N were intended to shorten the war and save lives, and that’s just what they did. How can a measure that is more parsimonious of life than the alternatives be truthfully described as “total war?”

It cannot, and your argument fails on those grounds alone.

“already pronounced by recent popes”

They are indicted by their own words: “recent popes.” That is an admission that popes prior to those “recent popes” pronounced no such thing.

“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.”

That is so clearly a slap in America’s face that it could have been issued by the Supreme Soviet. I assert that it is not a legitimate teaching of the Magisterium, but a misuse of the Church’s teaching authority by theological leftists for the purpose of advantaging the Soviet Union in Cold War I.

“1. Cf. John XXIII…2. Cf. Pius XII”

I anticipate that history will seat those two in the pantheon of the infamous.

“This is solemn”

What is the significance of that? Any lying scoundrel can be solemn.

“…and on the same footing as the declaration in the very same conciliar document which stated…abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”

Woah, Nelly. A person would need a jet pack to take a leap of that magnitude. The fact that a document is right about one thing hardly shows that its every assertion is equally right.

“Moreover, these two judgments are based on the same moral reasoning, namely, that the deliberate destruction of innocent human life is the crime of murder, and cannot be justified by any calculus of utility or benefit, however pressing.”

The Holy Scriptures I quoted in my last note, and which YOU HAVE SEEN FIT TO IGNORE, indicate that this moral reasoning is faulty—according to God’s Word, at least.

“…that those who pressed for the strongest condemnation of target=city bombing were the conservatives/traditionalists, e.g. Cardinal Ottaviani.”

Not surprising, when one considers the times. They foresaw the use of nukes by evil empires.

“At the same time, those of a more liberal frame of mind, e.g. John Courtney Murray, were arguing for a policy of nuclear deterrence and even for the moral possibility of limited nuclear war. He was joined by the still more elastic “situational ethics” people who denied in principle the existence of “intrinsically evil” acts.”

Of course. All leftism, including theological leftism, is of and from Satan. It is only to be expected that they would want no interference with the use of nukes for evil.

“What these people have in common: they admit the existence of exceptionless norms.”

The Bible shows that the destruction of cities is *not* one of those exceptionless norms. Which, I think, is why you choose to ignore the scriptures I quoted in my last post. To confront them is to admit that your position is incorrect.

“If I understand you correctly -— and please correct me if I’m wrong -— you have difficulties with this teaching.”

No, I think that “this teaching” was introduced and advanced by malicious forces, and is contrary to authentic Catholic teachings.

“rather than to announce that I take umbrage at papal and conciliar teachings.”

I didn’t say that I take umbrage at papal and conciliar teachings. I took umbrage at *your* argument that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “intrinsically depraved.”

Unfortunately, a great deal of error introduced in the last hundred and fifty years or so is now accepted as authentic, even by those of good faith. These errors must be identified and ripped out, root and branch.

I had thought that as Catholics, we would have a certain common ground, such as, for instance, the conviction

that an evil thing (e.g. the slaying of an innocent person) must not be willed or chosen, neither as an end in itself nor as a means to an end;
that the clear declarations of an ecumenical council in union with the pope--- and not just formally infallible dogmas--- must be received with religious obedience;
that one’s private interpretation of the Old Testament does no trump Augustine and Aquinas, Pius XII, John XXIII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, let alone the very basic teachings of Natural Law and the Right to Life as the foundation of International Law as understood by orthodox Catholic teachers from at least Francisco de Vitoria and the 16th century pontiffs to this very day.

You say: “We Catholics are at liberty to question or even reject things that are not inerrant or infallible, especially where they contradict all that has gone before.”

Show me the contradiction here. Show me where some Pope or Council, some Father or Doctor of the Church, or even some pre- (how far back do you want to take it? pre-1914? pre-1870? pre-1532?) textbook on Moral Theology or Natural Law, has taught that one may kill innocent persons, in a deliberate or objectively indiscriminate fashion, if one has a good reason.

Show me one of the above, who would define murder in a way that excludes these constitutive elements found in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) (Link):

“The direct killing of an innocent person is, of course, to be reckoned among the most grievous of sins. It is said to happen directly when the death of the person is viewed either as an end attractive in itself, or at any rate is chosen as a means to an end.”

You say: ”I am not making a case that all acts of VatII are null. I do assert, along with many others, that abuses were perpetrated by theological leftists [Modernists]…”

This is certainly misdirection. Those of a Modernist tendency deny objectively gravely morally offensive character of such acts as sodomy, contraception, and the killing of an innocent person or whatever age or stage; whereas those of traditional and orthodox convictions --- I mentioned some of them in my last post---- oppose such acts which, if done in a deliberate and knowing manner, are mortal sins.

Your quote from Pascendi Dominici Gregis seems also an instance of misdirection. In the passage you cited, Pius X speaks of “enemies of the Church” who “degrade [the Sacred Redeemer] to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.” This has nothing to do with a great and doctrinally sound Cardinal like Ottaviani, for instance, the bane of Modernists, and the defender of the constant prohibition against murder, traditionally defined.

You say: “Admiral Nimitz wanted to blockade the Japanese archipelago and starve every inhabitant. Would that have been “total war?”

Yes.

You say: ”The bombings of H and N were intended to shorten the war and save lives, and that’s just what they did.”

If you had argued, instead, that the deaths at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, etc. were eithr entirely inadvertent or were collateral and proportionate, we’d have some semblance of a Catholic argument to work out. But if you try to justify the choice of using a method of indiscriminate killing as a means to an end e.g. ending the war, you have gone into Situation Ethics and Consequentialism and thus quite beyond the bounds of Catholic discourse.

You say: “recent popes.” That is an admission that popes prior to those “recent popes” pronounced no such thing.”

This does not follow. It is not such an admission. This is eisegesis, reading your own meaning into a text in a rather obvious way; second, the Fathers could have found previous authority going all the way back, if you please, to Genesis.

You say: ”This [declaration] is a misuse of the Church’s teaching authority by theological leftists for the purpose of advantaging the Soviet Union in Cold War I.”

This is not just slightly inaccurate, but the polar opposite of the truth. The teaching that the use of force in war must be discriminate goes back, in a formal sense, to ius in bello via Aquinas and Augustine; mind you, the prohibition of the “shedding of innocent blood” goes ALL the way back to the Author who prohibited such acts some 15 or 18 times explicitly in the Old Testament alone.

And you think this is the work of a pro-Soviet cabal? Is your "other" screen name Dr. E… ? Please.

This is unsupportable in the light of the actual controversies in the period before, during, and after, the Council debate, in which it was the orthodox and traditionalists (e.g. Ottaviani) who held the line on the objective judgments about killing the innocent, as a means or as an end. It was men of a more Modernist and even Americanist tendency (e.g. John Courtney Murray) who were a good deal more elastic about it.

Your citation of the total slaughter found in, for instance, the Book of Judges, does not prove your point that targeting noncombatants is just. If one could prove such a point in this manner, it would prove a great deal too much, since in the OT one can find many morally objectionable acts by men who are elsewhere called “just” men or driven by “the spirit of the Lord” such as Abraham offering his two virgin daughters to the rapists in Sodom (“and you can do what you like with them”); the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter in accordance with a vow to God; the dashing of Babylon's babies against the rocks; the authorization of soldiers’ sexual abuse of captured women; and Lord knows, many other depraved acts both in wartime and in other circumstances.

A preference for one's personal interpretation of Scripture, and an open antagonism toward Popes, Councils, Doctors of the Church, and Natural Law, is, of course, a expected staple of the FReepin’ Squeekin’ Religious Controversies^TM so typical of this forum; but I would have expected otherwise from a Catholic.

Okay, I’ve been thinking about this, and I just don’t see any way around your habitual failure to address the arguments I actually make.

Instead of addressing what I actually propose, you make a practice of misconstruing my arguments, then “rebutting” your own creations, and, importantly, of assuming that which must be demonstrated.

I don’t know if you are doing this inadvertently or intentionally, and in the final analysis, it doesn’t really matter.

For instance, you asserted that I do not share the belief that “an evil thing (e.g. the slaying of an innocent person) must not be willed or chosen, neither as an end in itself nor as a means to an end...”

What is actually happening there is not that I do not share that belief, but rather that you are unwilling to consider that this principle simply may not apply here. And no matter how many times I say that, your reply is inevitably some variant of “you are advocating the killing of the innocent.” That sort of discussion is as futile as it is useless. It avoids the difficult moral questions by reducing the complexity of human existence to a black and white cartoon caricature.

You try to invalidate Holy Scripture by denigrating it as only my “private interpretation of the Old Testament.” Your reference to the obedience of the Jews to God’s commands as “depraved acts” is simply beyond the pale of reason.

On the basis of nothing whatsoever you conscript “Augustine and Aquinas...the very basic teachings of Natural Law and the Right to Life as the foundation of International Law...” as supporters of your position WRT nuclear weapons.

You misrepresent an assertion that Catholic teachings on acts permissible in *war* were different in the past, as one that “one may kill innocent persons, in a deliberate or objectively indiscriminate fashion, if one has a good reason.”

There, you not only misrepresent my argument, but (a) *assume* again that the concept of “innocent persons” is applicable here, and do so without making the slightest attempt to support your assumption; and (b) *assume* that the decisions that led to H and N were “deliberate or objectively indiscriminate.”

In saying “Show me one of the above, who would define murder in a way that excludes these constitutive elements found in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917),” you are either accusing me of defining murder in such a way, or *assuming* that the deaths at H and N were “murder.”

If you are accusing me of defining murder in such a way, you are putting words in my mouth. If you are *assuming* murder, I’m throwing a flag on the play. You must first demonstrate that those deaths were murder before you can use that assertion to bludgeon people about the head and shoulders.

In response to my mention of the well-known abuses perpetrated by theological leftists during or around the time of VatII, you say, “This is certainly misdirection. Those of a Modernist tendency deny objectively gravely morally offensive character…”

Modernists and modernism cannot be circumscribed and limited in such a way. Satan is both more intelligent and more subtle than we, and the attacks of modernists on the Church are a veritable kaleidoscope of gambits, strategies, sophistry, and deceit. In short, you have no grounds whatsoever for dismissing so cavalierly a reference to the wisdom of the Saint. You do not offer an argument, but attempt to dismiss an argument without considering it on its merits.

“and the defender of the constant prohibition against murder, traditionally defined.”

Once again, you imply that my position is in conflict with the prohibition against murder, while ignoring the fact that one is allowed to kill the enemy during a just war, and that incidental civilian casualties inflicted in that activity are not—I say again, not—murder. You simply *assume,* again and again, that the entire question is simply the deliberate and indiscriminate killing of innocent people, without ever examining the key subtleties that separate the soldier and the surgeon from the criminal, or acts committed in wartime from those committed in peacetime.

You contradict the most obvious observations, as when I noted that citing “recent popes” is an admission that there is a difference between those “recent popes” and earlier popes. If that were not so, there would be no need for the word, “recent.”

Nonetheless, you insist that “This does not follow. It is not such an admission. This is eisegesis, reading your own meaning into a text in a rather obvious way.”

It is the meaning of the text that is obvious, and when you deny it you might as well be insisting that the sky is red.

You go on to equate the murder of Abel by Cain with every act of military resistance to evil throughout the existence of humanity. I’m sure that every soldier that fought for this country would be grateful for your explanation.

I can’t continue with this exercise in futility. When you ignorantly mock a mention of the well-known and thoroughly documented activities of the enemy and the Enemy during Cold War I, you make it abundantly clear that there is simply no point in attempting to discuss or debate these matters with you.

At such time as you decide to refrain from the offenses against reason that I described above, that might be different.

Dear dsc, I went back and read the thousands of words that have passed between on this subject, and I want to reiterate just one phrase I wrote to you:

”If I understand you correctly --- and please correct me if I'm wrong---“

I have been open, even eager, to be corrected when hampered by my own misunderstanding. I have always assumed you were arguing in good faith, and we would both be wise to continue to assume that of each other. Lacking that, there’s no point to discussion, and we might as well go at each other with pointed sticks (as happens on so many doomed FReeper discussions, alas!)

So I beg you pardon for any transgressions, small or large, advertent or inadvertent, and I offer you the same pardon.

Part of the problem might have been that we both jumped off into lengthy riffs without any prior declaration of our own underlying assumptions, and without even defining key terms.

For instance, it would have helped if we had made it clear from the outset that we both share the belief that “an evil thing (e.g. the slaying of an innocent person) must not be willed or chosen, neither as an end in itself, nor as a means to an end...” but that you consider that this principle simply may not apply here. Then you would have been in a good position to explain why it may not.

Similarly, we ought to have made clear from the outset how we can and ought to resort to the authority of Sacred Scripture. It is shocking to me that you thought I was trying to “invalidate” Holy Scripture (!) or that I thought the obedience of the Jews to God’s commands is a “depraved act” (!!). I can only shake my head in perplexity. It is against God’s nature to command things which are morally depraved; in fact my whole point is that He does not do so.

And on and on. We seem to be misconstruing each other at every turn. We never settle on a definition of “innocent” or “noncombatant,” and then fault each other when, midstream, we get an inkling that we have different definitions. We allude to ius ad bellum or ius in bello or Augustine or Aquinas without having previously set forth what we regard as the criteria for justice in war, and the argument for or derivation of those criteria.

You charge, “You go on to equate the murder of Abel by Cain with every act of military resistance to evil throughout the existence of humanity”--- and this charge is utterly unfounded: I am not a pacifist; I support military resistance to aggression; I specifically back lethal force against our murderous jihadi enemies (and I blessed my Marine son who was on active duty at Al-Asad base in Iraq until earlier this year); in fact I have never once made a pacifist argument in the 12 years I have been posting at FR.

Then this leads to another round of “You misinterpret!” “No, you misinterpret!”

So here we are, all knotted up in a tangled skein of argument. Let’s leave off, but in peace.

I don’t think this particular tangle-patch can be straightened out, but I should like to converse you again somewhere down the line: in good faith, and with a more satisfactory result.

God bless you.

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.