“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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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."
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.