As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Kathryn_Ann]

Yes, the bombing ended the Japanese war efforts.
However, I’ll say more about that.

My father as a Navy officer took part in the Occupation of Japan.
What he saw in Japan, unrelated to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, was the horror of war.

The entire population was in state of prolonged starvation.
Until those bombings, ALL activity went to support the war efforts in Japan.
The only population in sight was women, some children and very old men.
All were virtually starving to death. Stopping the war brought food and medicine
back to people of Japan. Yes, it is horrible that so many died in the bombings.
May it never happen again.

Yet the bombings ended the war and that was the intention.

“The only population in sight was women, some children and very old men.”? I believe these people (and their kinfolk who were killed by the bomb) are the very people Our Lord Jesus Christ would require us to protect, not to eradicate. Starvation is one thing, dropping bombs to kill entire populations is another thing entirely. In reply to “May it never happen again.” I would say that warring still goes on today with many innocents still caught in the crossfire, due to the logic that some greater future good will be served.

No wonder the Lord’s prayer reads “Give us this day our daily bread.” To claim some future good as a reason for mass extermination is not a right given to mortals. God save us from the “logic” that continues to allow innocents (which includes women, some children and very old men) to suffer and die in the name of a greater good. The daily bread spoken of in our Lord’s prayer should magnify a sense of humility, that we are not to play God, that we are all beloved in His sight. Aggressive nationalism from any front disregards this plea for simplicity, equality and the peace of God’s Kingdom of love.

Some say that this is an impossible goal, and so we continue warring throughout the course of history. On a continuing and disturbing scale, the slaughter of innocents has never ceased. The March 16, 1968, My Lai Massacre should haunt our memory, as well as other abused civilians, among them innocent children caught in the crossfire of the war in Iraq. Even our attempts at economic sanctions often denies civilians in war- torn countries access to medicine, hospital supplies, food and infrastructure. All such horrors, whether from crossfire or denial of access to basic needs should give us pause the next time we declare war, and the next, and the next and the next…

 

[catharina]

"The only population in sight was women, some children and very old men."? I believe these people (and their kinfolk who were killed by the bomb) are the very people Our Lord Jesus Christ would require us to protect, not to eradicate. Starvation is one thing, dropping bombs to kill entire populations is another thing entirely. **The people who were seen by my father during the occupation of Japan were alive. They were tended to and fed and freed by the US military forces. They were not killed or tortured or deprived by the USA; they found freedom and healing that their ruler had not afforded them. Those who died in the bombings were other people. The bombings ended the war, a horrible ending and may it never happen again, but the war was ended. ** In reply to “May it never happen again.” I would say that warring still goes on today with many innocents still caught in the crossfire, due to the logic that some greater future good will be served.

No wonder the Lord’s prayer reads “Give us this day our daily bread.” To claim some future good as a reason for mass extermination is not a right given to mortals. God save us from the “logic” that continues to allow innocents (which includes women, some children and very old men) to suffer and die in the name of a greater good. The daily bread spoken of in our Lord’s prayer should magnify a sense of humility, that we are not to play God, that we are all beloved in His sight. Aggressive nationalism from any front disregards this plea for simplicity, equality and the peace of God’s Kingdom of love.

Some say that this is an impossible goal, and so we continue warring throughout the course of history. On a continuing and disturbing scale, the slaughter of innocents has never ceased. The March 16, 1968, My Lai Massacre should haunt our memory, as well as other abused civilians, among them innocent children caught in the crossfire of the war in Iraq. Even our attempts at economic sanctions often denies civilians in war- torn countries access to medicine, hospital supplies, food and infrastructure. All such horrors, whether from crossfire or denial of access to basic needs should give us pause the next time we declare war, and the next, and the next and the next…

 

[JimG]

Starvation is one thing, dropping bombs to kill entire populations is another thing entirely. .

I just wanted to comment on this part. Starvation is not “another thing entirely.” It is an even more horrific weapon of war and oppression than bombs. Bombs, even nuclear bombs, are limited in scope by the physics of their construction. They can’t really kill “entire populations,” if by that you mean nearly all the citizens of a nation. But starvation can, and Stalin used starvation quite effectively as a matter of political enforcement over entire populations.

The U.S. did not enter WW-II because of nationalism. We entered it to save Europe, which was of course also in our best interest, since a Nazi controlled Europe would have been an ongoing threat. And allowing Japan to fall under Soviet Communist domination would have been a death sentence to them. One might look at the current situation in North Korea for a look at the possible result

 

[catharina]

I just wanted to comment on this part. Starvation is not “another thing entirely.” It is an even more horrific weapon of war and oppression than bombs. Bombs, even nuclear bombs, are limited in scope by the physics of their construction. They can’t really kill “entire populations,” if by that you mean nearly all the citizens of a nation. But starvation can, and Stalin used starvation quite effectively as a matter of political enforcement over entire populations.

The U.S. did not enter WW-II because of nationalism. We entered it to save Europe, which was of course also in our best interest, since a Nazi controlled Europe would have been an ongoing threat. And allowing Japan to fall under Soviet Communist domination would have been a death sentence to them. One might look at the current situation in North Korea for a look at the possible result

Thank you for your post.
Yes, starvation provides a uniquely horrific death.
It’s a long-term dying with excruciating pain - NOT “over in a flash.”

Google any medical journal for the specifics
of death by starvation. Starvation is a tool of war
repeated many times throughout history. This tool
has been used in all concentration camps to bring
about a slow and torturous death. Vietnam and Cambodia
and even the Baltic States were notorious for starvation,
tactics used against its own citizens.

In Japan, the Emperor’s “need to conquer” brought
death to his own citizens through prolonged starvation.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Thank you for your post.
Yes, starvation provides a uniquely horrific death.
It’s a long-term dying with excruciating pain - NOT “over in a flash.”

Google any medical journal for the specifics
of death by starvation. Starvation is a tool of war
repeated many times throughout history. This tool
has been used in all concentration camps to bring
about a slow and torturous death. Vietnam and Cambodia
and even the Baltic States were notorious for starvation,
tactics used against its own citizens.

In Japan, the Emperor’s “need to conquer” brought
death to his own citizens through prolonged starvation.

BREAD ANSWERS STARVATION, NOT BOMBS:
Starvation requires the mercy of bread, not bombs. What was it that fell from the sky on that terrible day that alleviated hunger or despair? How were we so worried about hunger that we decided instead to kill and maim innocent children and their families? Bread, bread, is the answer to your statements about caring to feed Christ’s beloveds who saw no such mercy fall from the sky.

Implying that dropping an atomic bomb and murdering countless innocent civilians was somehow justified in order to end Japan’s starvation of its own people is frightening logic here. Had we been so feverishly concerned with feeding these beloved people of Christ, the Enola Gay and other planes would have made food drops, not dropped the bomb which left unarmed civilians, small children and entire families fleeing to the rivers with horrific burns and ghastly medical conditions from the continuing effects of radiation for years to come.

The beautiful young Sadako Sasaki’s memorial reminds us of the horrors of what fell from the sky. Her story, her hopes of folding her thousand paper cranes to stave off death from the radiation she endured as a small child, her story speaks to millions of children today and my heart breaks for countless others. Sadako died before she could reach her goal. I do hope that we all remember her as we try to come to terms with the evils of war that effects so many innocents to this day. I do pray that you join me in this hope.

Bread, bread answers hunger. How did we answer that plea before the terrible decision for destruction? The doors of the Enola Gay opened and nothing merciful, nothing answering hunger and despair was unleashed when the doors opened to release the dreadful bomb on to unsuspecting people. Two wrongs, two terrible evils cannot make a right.

I also have a father who witnessed things first hand, and have seen the Manhattan Engineer District Report with photos of exactly what devastation we left the very people we so gallantly fed and attended to after the fact. How sad to think that one evil can somehow purge another or that coming in afterward, we can feel at peace with our own dreadful part in this?

The fact that the My Lai Massacre during Vietnam (and countless subsequent wars including what is going on in Iraq) seems to bother no one’s conscience is a telling observation. My point about starvation was that we do not play God and murder countless civilians with atomic bombs in order to stop other terrors or cruelties. Bread answers starvation, not bombs. There is a Catholic link here which explains not only the requirement of justification before entering a war, but also addresses the issue of justifying exactly what we do once we enter it. catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Just_War_Theory.htm

To step into the arena of God’s judgement and decide to murder thousands of civilians because their own empire is unjustly cruel is a grievous error. Two evils do not make a right.

Taking God’s judgement into our own hands with such destructive powers? Do not desire it. There are enough people ready and willing to rush into the territory where angels fear to tread. I would leave this particular thread with only the comment that the word “trespass” implies just that, territorial rights. As to making a judgement on the murder of innocent civilians whose starvation requires the simple mercy of bread and peace, I see nothing of God’s hand in what fell from the sky that terrible August day or in the cross fires that to this day harm the innocents.

Let bread and mercy answer starvation, not armory and destruction. If we cannot love our armed enemies, we must pray for the honor, the virtue and the resolve to not purposefully harm their unarmed, innocent men, women and children who look to the skies for hope. “Give us this day our daily bread, love thine enemies,” not my words, but His who loves us all.

In Christ’s love,
Kathryn Ann

 

[yosupman]

Thank you for your post.
Yes, starvation provides a uniquely horrific death.
It’s a long-term dying with excruciating pain - NOT “over in a flash.”

Google any medical journal for the specifics
of death by starvation. Starvation is a tool of war
repeated many times throughout history. This tool
has been used in all concentration camps to bring
about a slow and torturous death. Vietnam and Cambodia
and even the Baltic States were notorious for starvation,
tactics used against its own citizens.

In Japan, the Emperor’s “need to conquer” brought
death to his own citizens through prolonged starvation.

Cardinal Nueman once said “It is better for the whole world to die from starvation than one person commit a venial sin”

 

[catharina]

BREAD ANSWERS STARVATION, NOT BOMBS:
Starvation requires the mercy of bread, not bombs. What was it that fell from the sky on that terrible day that alleviated hunger or despair? How were we so worried about hunger that we decided instead to kill and maim innocent children and their families? Bread, bread, is the answer to your statements about caring to feed Christ’s beloveds who saw no such mercy fall from the sky.

Implying that dropping an atomic bomb and murdering countless innocent civilians was somehow justified in order to end Japan’s starvation of its own people is frightening logic here. Had we been so feverishly concerned with feeding these beloved people of Christ, the Enola Gay and other planes would have made food drops, not dropped the bomb which left unarmed civilians, small children and entire families fleeing to the rivers with horrific burns and ghastly medical conditions from the continuing effects of radiation for years to come.

The beautiful young Sadako Sasaki’s memorial reminds us of the horrors of what fell from the sky. Her story, her hopes of folding her thousand paper cranes to stave off death from the radiation she endured as a small child, her story speaks to millions of children today and my heart breaks for countless others. Sadako died before she could reach her goal. I do hope that we all remember her as we try to come to terms with the evils of war that effects so many innocents to this day. I do pray that you join me in this hope.

Bread, bread answers hunger. How did we answer that plea before the terrible decision for destruction? The doors of the Enola Gay opened and nothing merciful, nothing answering hunger and despair was unleashed when the doors opened to release the dreadful bomb on to unsuspecting people. Two wrongs, two terrible evils cannot make a right.

I also have a father who witnessed things first hand, and have seen the Manhattan Engineer District Report with photos of exactly what devastation we left the very people we so gallantly fed and attended to after the fact. How sad to think that one evil can somehow purge another or that coming in afterward, we can feel at peace with our own dreadful part in this?

The fact that the My Lai Massacre during Vietnam (and countless subsequent wars including what is going on in Iraq) seems to bother no one’s conscience is a telling observation. My point about starvation was that we do not play God and murder countless civilians with atomic bombs in order to stop other terrors or cruelties. Bread answers starvation, not bombs. There is a Catholic link here which explains not only the requirement of justification before entering a war, but also addresses the issue of justifying exactly what we do once we enter it. catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Just_War_Theory.htm

To step into the arena of God’s judgement and decide to murder thousands of civilians because their own empire is unjustly cruel is a grievous error. Two evils do not make a right.

Taking God’s judgement into our own hands with such destructive powers? Do not desire it. There are enough people ready and willing to rush into the territory where angels fear to tread. I would leave this particular thread with only the comment that the word “trespass” implies just that, territorial rights. As to making a judgement on the murder of innocent civilians whose starvation requires the simple mercy of bread and peace, I see nothing of God’s hand in what fell from the sky that terrible August day or in the cross fires that to this day harm the innocents.

Let bread and mercy answer starvation, not armory and destruction. If we cannot love our armed enemies, we must pray for the honor, the virtue and the resolve to not purposefully harm their unarmed, innocent men, women and children who look to the skies for hope. “Give us this day our daily bread, love thine enemies,” not my words, but His who loves us all.

In Christ’s love,
Kathryn Ann

You seem to have missed the point.
Both JimG and I take issue with what seems
to be your attitude of “starvation? hey, not so bad.”

If you are NOT intending to imply that idea,
then you need to clarify both your thinking and your posting.

 

[pnewton]

BREAD ANSWERS STARVATION, NOT BOMBS:
Starvation requires the mercy of bread, not bombs.

This reminds me of something Peter Kreeft said about fighting evil. One does not fight fire with fire, but fire with water. When dealing with evil forces, one can not become evil to defeat it. The end justifying the means is a meaningless concept, unless one has the wrong end in mind, like nationalism. If the goal is to stop an evil regime, then becoming an evil regime to stop them is contradictory.

 

[yosupman]

This reminds me of something Peter Kreeft said about fighting evil. One does not fight fire with fire, but fire with water. When dealing with evil forces, one can not become evil to defeat it. The end justifying the means is a meaningless concept, unless one has the wrong end in mind, like nationalism. If the goal is to stop an evil regime, then becoming an evil regime to stop them is contradictory.

Right on brother!!!

The church is very clear that using indiscriminate violence on innocent people is a crime against humanity. It makes me wonder, why did we have this thread and poll? Its a settled issue. It’s sort of like arguing, how many people think abortion is ok if linked to rape and incest.

 

[catharina]

This reminds me of something Peter Kreeft said about fighting evil. One does not fight fire with fire, but fire with water. When dealing with evil forces, one can not become evil to defeat it. The end justifying the means is a meaningless concept, unless one has the wrong end in mind, like nationalism. If the goal is to stop an evil regime, then becoming an evil regime to stop them is contradictory.

Very good points.

A part of the timeliness was that American servicemen and their officers
actually believed that the Japanese were the horror of horrors - emboldened 
torturers with their own personal death wish, their "acceptable" option for
suicide.  The commonly held idea was that the Japanese seemed to be 
dangerously undefeatable.  

That's likely the very reason that the US military assigned to the Occupation
were simply stunned and permanently horrified by what they saw in Japan.  
Men, women and children - dying of starvation, left to die by their own leaders, 
their own war machine.  My sibs and I often wondered if our father ever enjoyed 
a meal again - after the war.  During the war (in letters to our mother) he spoke 
of missing fresh milk and lettuce (of all things).  We saw the letters. 

After his time in Japan, post-war, food seemed to hold no meaning for him.
The US military, men and women, believed their leaders.  It's that simple.

 

[pnewton]

Right on brother!!!

The church is very clear that using indiscriminate violence on innocent people is a crime against humanity. It makes me wonder, why did we have this thread and poll? Its a settled issue.

Yes, it is. And while it is a weak argument, and one I simply can not accept, I believe the only one that can be held within Catholic moral teaching, is that the bombing of Hiroshima was a measured military target. That said, I think it is equally unfair to impute sin to those who made this decision and executed it.

 

[JimG]

You seem to have missed the point.
Both JimG and I take issue with what seems
to be your attitude of “starvation? hey, not so bad.”

I intended simply to make the point that both bombs and starvation have been deliberately used as weapons of war. Both have been used as weapons of oppression. Starvation has been used particularly by reppressive communist regimes. I don’t view starvation as less morally reprehensible than the use of bombs.

I would only note with respect to Japan that starvation was already underway in that country because of the war. As soon as the war ended, the U.S. began major relief efforts to ward off further starvation. Such relief efforts could not have been begun until the war ended. One can also be relatively certain that no such relief efforts would have gone forward under a Soviet occupation.

GKC has mentioned in previous posts that the longer the war continued, the more deaths from starvation the Japanese would have experienced. The death toll continued to mount daily.

I am not attempting to justify the use of the atomic bombs. It does seem to me that they were not the only nor perhaps even the worst of the morally questionable tactics of the war. At the point they were used, there seem to have been no good options which would have prevented a massive increase in the death toll.

I’m not a historian of WW-II, so I hesitate to make moral decisions based on hindsight.

 

[catharina]

I intended simply to make the point that both bombs and starvation have been deliberately used as weapons of war. Both have been used as weapons of oppression. Starvation has been used particularly by reppressive communist regimes. I don’t view starvation as less morally reprehensible than the use of bombs.

I would only note with respect to Japan that starvation was already underway in that country because of the war. As soon as the war ended, the U.S. began major relief efforts to ward off further starvation. Such relief efforts could not have been begun until the war ended. One can also be relatively certain that no such relief efforts would have gone forward under a Soviet occupation.

GKC has mentioned in previous posts that the longer the war continued, the more deaths from starvation the Japanese would have experienced. The death toll continued to mount daily.

I am not attempting to justify the use of the atomic bombs. It does seem to me that they were not the only nor perhaps even the worst of the morally questionable tactics of the war. At the point they were used, there seem to have been no good options which would have prevented a massive increase in the death toll.

I’m not a historian of WW-II, so I hesitate to make moral decisions based on hindsight.

As I said, US troops entered Japan to find the citizens starving.
This was a result of war, yes, but most particularly a result
of their own leaders neglecting the needs of citizens in order
to pursue a victory that could never be won.

Starvation is a horrific death - as we have agreed.
No doubt at all that the Soviets would not have assisted in feeding the Japanese.

 

[yosupman]

Yes, it is. And while it is a weak argument, and one I simply can not accept, I believe the only one that can be held within Catholic moral teaching, is that the bombing of Hiroshima was a measured military target. That said, I think it is equally unfair to impute sin to those who made this decision and executed it.

Ok, I see you are making the argument that Hiroshima could be considered a military target.

I personally think the catechism of the Catholic church makes the case that using wepons that wipe out entire population areas is a grave sin. Dropping the bomb on a city with an entire population area is wrong. I’m not arguing, maybe Hiroshima had some military targets there, but we should have bombed those separately, not using a “wipe the slate clean” nuclear weapon.

 

[pnewton]

Ok, I see you are making the argument that Hiroshima could be considered a military target.

I am not making that argument, but that is an argument that has been made. As I said in my last post, I do not agree with this logic, nor do I see it, but it is consistent with Catholic teaching. The Catechism clearly uses the word “indiscriminate”, as in not discriminating between military targets, as what is not allowable. If a true military target is what is destroyed, and the good done so was proportionally greater than the the evil that results, then the law of double effect allows it.

In the Iraqi war, each bomb placed is judged according to the size needed to accomplish the military objective, while minimizing casualties. In a just war (I am making no comment on the Iraqi War) this is allowable.

The error I see with the Hiroshima bombing is that I do not believe the target was military. Thus it is not the law of double effect, but an objectively evil deed that was justified by the eventual ends. This, of course, is not allowable.

 

[JimG]

I am not making that argument, but that is an argument that has been made. As I said in my last post, I do not agree with this logic, nor do I see it, but it is consistent with Catholic teaching. The Catechism clearly uses the word “indiscriminate”, as in not discriminating between military targets, as what is not allowable. If a true military target is what is destroyed, and the good done so was proportionally greater than the the evil that results, then the law of double effect allows it.

In the Iraqi war, each bomb placed is judged according to the size needed to accomplish the military objective, while minimizing casualties. In a just war (I am making no comment on the Iraqi War) this is allowable.

The error I see with the Hiroshima bombing is that I do not believe the target was military. Thus it is not the law of double effect, but an objectively evil deed that was justified by the eventual ends. This, of course, is not allowable.

In thinking about the use of the term “indiscriminate,” it seems to me that nearly every bomb dropped during WW-II was “indiscriminate,” first, because bombs by their nature cannot discriminate between combatant and non-combatant, as a sniper, for example, could do, and second, because there were no “smart bombs” until very recently. Accuracy in targeting left much to be desired, especially in wartime conditions of nighttime bombing, or in cloudy conditions, and with the bombers attempting to evade flak while carrying out the mission.

Also, I am thinking that even if we had possessed smart bombs with good targeting, using those bombs against every possible military target within a city would still result in a huge amount of collateral damage to civilians.

Discriminate bombing is hard to achieve. Currently, some of the most accurate targeting systems are those associated with ICBM’s.

 

[yosupman]

I am not making that argument, but that is an argument that has been made. As I said in my last post, I do not agree with this logic, nor do I see it, but it is consistent with Catholic teaching. The Catechism clearly uses the word “indiscriminate”, as in not discriminating between military targets, as what is not allowable. If a true military target is what is destroyed, and the good done so was proportionally greater than the the evil that results, then the law of double effect allows it.

In the Iraqi war, each bomb placed is judged according to the size needed to accomplish the military objective, while minimizing casualties. In a just war (I am making no comment on the Iraqi War) this is allowable.

The error I see with the Hiroshima bombing is that I do not believe the target was military. Thus it is not the law of double effect, but an objectively evil deed that was justified by the eventual ends. This, of course, is not allowable.

If I relook at paragraph 2314 in the catechism, it says "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destrcution of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a cime against God and man, which merits firm unequivoval condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the oportunity to those who possess modern sicentific weapons - espcecially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons, to commit such crimes.

I don’t think one can make the argument using the law of double effect. The law of double effect would apply to one bombing a specific military target such as a factory, or military base, and an innocent worker at that factory, or base gets killed.

 

[pnewton]

In thinking about the use of the term “indiscriminate,” it seems to me that nearly every bomb dropped during WW-II was “indiscriminate,” first, because bombs by their nature cannot discriminate between combatant and non-combatant, as a sniper, for example, could do, and second, because there were no “smart bombs” until very recently. Accuracy in targeting left much to be desired, especially in wartime conditions of nighttime bombing, or in cloudy conditions, and with the bombers attempting to evade flak while carrying out the mission.

Improvement of bombing accuracy was something sought throughout the war, and after. That bomb sights were even used shows that there was usually a discrimination of targets. Inaccuracy only factors in that the evil done as a secondary effect was greater than it might have otherwise been, so that the good sought needed to be greater.

 

[Rock_Happy]

A few years after the A-bomb attacks, Harry Truman came under criticism for ordering them. His subordinates wrote up and had published the propaganda that those bombings were done for the pupose of saving thousands of American lives, and the public has been buying into this lie ever since. The truth, as admitted by Truman’s own officials, is that the bombings were done to forestall a Soviet takeover in the far east.
Mr. Happy: you omitted a choice: (4) Let the Russians finish off Japan. No need for a US invasion.

Mr Erwin - how would killing russians be any different than killing americans or japanese. the issue was that an invasion would have cost many more lives then dropping those bombs. you may be correct that the russians would have come in from the east. i shudder to think of what that would have meant for the japanese.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

You seem to have missed the point.
Both JimG and I take issue with what seems
to be your attitude of “starvation? hey, not so bad.”

If you are NOT intending to imply that idea,
then you need to clarify both your thinking and your posting.

Dear Friend in Christ, your own words above re: “starvation, hey not so bad” being implied by anyone in this forum are sad and unfortunate and I pray that you will refrain further from posting something so ungenerous. Also, in a polite discussion, it is preferable not to demand of people what they “need to clarify,” or to state how they have “missed the point.” Ironically, it seems you have missed mine entirely. I’m sorry you cannot seem to understand but I will try to help you here as best I can, to see how bread and mercy, not bombs, alleviate starvation.

The starvation of innocent Japanese men, women and precious little children by their own empire (Japan) was caused by the Japanese Empire. The way to help them is then to have immediately addressed their terrible starvation with food and also medical supplies. We did not do that. Your premise is that instead of providing bread to alleviate their starvation we should murder them by dropping an atom bomb on them and that this is somehow benevolent. I might politely ask you to please clarify that, but I won’t.

I hope that you are not continuing to propose that since a despotic regime is starving its own people, that we just bomb entire cities full of defenseless, starving civilians and then come in gallantly and help whoever is left. (Left dead or covered in black, burning skin, horrible conditions too terrifying to mention further here.) I pray that this is not something you will want to defend. I worry what you might propose for other countries suffering starvation.

Your implication here is that the war was taking too much time, so you propose that murdering thousands of starving civilians, including children, is the answer to starvation and further makes your timeline more appealing somehow. That is taking the future, which belongs only to God, into our own hands, which is exactly what we as Christ’s children are not to do. These limitations are the human condition, humbling and yet one that Christ will help us with, if we but listen. But we didn’t, and thus, thousands of innocents were murdered.

What dropped from the Enola Gay was anything but benevolent. We cannot see into the future and say that the ends justifies the evil means. Christ would have fed them. Our military powers bombed them. “Facts are stubborn things”, as the saying goes.

• Starvation is not helped by bombing. I trust we are clear now.* Bombing these poor, defenseless civilian people who are beloved of Christ was taking God’s judgement about their future into our own hands. I wonder what it is that you do not understand about that. * If someone is starving, we do not murder them to save them from death by starvation.* It is not a benevolent action to bomb them. I hope this helps you.

In American Prometheus, the Triumph and Tragedy of Robert Oppenheimer, authored by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, we learn the words Oppenheimer spoke at his address to the American Philosophical Society after the bombings.

"The Hiroshima bomb was used against an essentially defeated enemy…it is a weapon for aggressors, and the elements of surprise and of terror are as intrinsic to it as are the fissionable nuclei… " (emphasis added.)

A weapon for aggressors. With the elements of surprise and of terror. And these were not soldiers or military targets, but civilians, beautiful little children and their mothers, fathers, grandparents, who fled in real terror, being burnt alive.

In the same speech, Oppenheimer stated

“The pattern of the use of atomic weapons was set at Hiroshima.” Understanding that countries would now be pitted against each other to build up all manner of arsenals, he spent the remainder of his life regretting what he considered to be the blood on his hands.

There was no justification or purity of arms in the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, which caused the atrocity of murder on innocent Japanese men, women and children, all civilians, all innocent as they were burned alive or suffered slow, agonizing deaths over weeks, months and years.

I trust that we all understand the beauty of the Catholic (Universal) Church that holds us to the highest calling, that of extending love and acts of mercy to those outside our borders, even to our real or imagined enemies. The first step towards healing is to refrain from calling benevolent that which is an act of terror, so that we may walk truthfully into the future that God, (not humans,) holds in His hands. I leave you with a (paraphrased) quote from a David Mamet play that is as inspiring as Christ’s words to love our enemies.

“I shall not side with the great against the powerless.”

Christ was always and is always on the side of the poor and disenfranchised, the hurting, the defenseless and the hungry.

“Where were you when I was hungry?” Jesus asked. On August 6th,1945 at 8:14 a.m., we did not answer with bread, but with murderous calamity, and the earth shuddered.

But there is Hope: His Holy Eucharist, His suffering and His dying and HIs Resurrection allow us all to humbly forgive others as we would wish to be forgiven. For that reason, I do hope all here in this forum will pray for each other and for the world, that we all understand the difference between the terror of aggression and the mercy of bread and acts of kindness, and understand that His life was given for just that reason, that we live in acts of loving compassion.

*Bread and mercy, not bombs, answer starvation. *

Peace in Chirst,
Kathryn Ann