[GeronL]

The Vatican came out against the atom bomb fast.

[Hebrews 11:6]

The Vatican came out against the atom bomb fast.

Yes. That's very disappointing, indicative of shallow, uninformed, unrestrained thinking.

[TMI talker]

VATICAN DEPLORES USE OF ATOM BOMB
via the AP

Kinda weak tea here.

1. - Cites an editorial in Osservatore Romano
   The atom bomb is called a "temptation for posterity".
2. - Vatican Press Office offers a quote:
   "The use of atomic bombs in Japan has created an unfavorable impression on the Vatican."
   Yet it is not clear what the Vatican knows of the Hiroshima details.
3. - "Other Vatican authorities declined to comment."

I would note the mismatch between the headline and the article content. The article source is the AP. Did the headline came from the NYT? There were those at the NYT (e.g., Herbert Matthews) who had a distinct talent for misinterpreting (to put it charitably) Vatican pronouncements to favor the Soviets.

That said, there's not much of a condemnation here. Even "deplorement" is hard to find. One could just as easily headline the article with "Shocked Vatican Warns Mankind". And the OR editorial holds that this new discovery may still be "a gift to the fortune of man" (or at least this awkward translation says that).

That being said, I imagine that most anyone would be shocked to find that a single plane could deliver the destructive power that only yesterday required 2,000 of the very latest strategic bombers to deliver. The potential scale of destruction ought to induce shock and awe (and not a little fear) in anyone of sound mind.

Was the Vatican correct in calling the A-bomb a "temptation"? Absolutely, especially in the wrong hands.

Was the Vatican correct in its "unfavorable impression" of the bomb? Well, the Church understands the fallen nature of man. That much power in the hands of a few, especially those that hold a "total war" philosophy, should be a serious concern to everyone.

I would also caution that the OR newspaper and the Vatican Press Office are sources for basic info, but are not official Magisterial outlets on their own. Take what they say with a grain of salt. And take what other newsies claim that these Vatican outlets have said with an even bigger grain of salt.

Lastly, I would note that many use old NYT articles as indicators of what was publicly known at a given moment in history. I have no problem with that. Where we can get into trouble is confusing What Is Known with What Is True. I NEVER rely on the secular press for accurate reporting re: the Vatican.