Fr Miscamble defending atomic bomb

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicAggie19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicAggie19

Guest
Just watched a PragerU video where Fr Wilson Miscamble of Notre Dame defended the dropping of the atomic bomb. Hasn’t the Church taught against the dropping of the bomb?

Here is a link to the video

 
I don’t know if there is an official teaching, but I have definitely heard a number of priests say that the United States’ atom-bombing of Japan in WWII was immoral because of the disregard of innocent human life. I think the same logic would prohibit any indiscriminate bombing where non-military persons were living. I’ve heard priests say that the rationale often used to defend the bombing (saved U.S. military lives, shortened the war, etc.) are not valid reasons because Catholic moral teaching does not permit this type of killing (of innocents) as means to an end.
 
ChuckWilson said:
I don’t know if there is an official teaching, but I have definitely heard a number of priests say that the United States’ atom-bombing of Japan in WWII was immoral because of the disregard of innocent human life. I think the same logic would prohibit any indiscriminate bombing where non-military persons were living. I’ve heard priests say that the rationale often used to defend the bombing (saved U.S. military lives, shortened the war, etc.) are not valid reasons because Catholic moral teaching does not permit this type of killing (of innocents) as means to an end.
Click to expand...
hmmm. I’ve also heard many say that the first bomb was sort of OK (because many didn’t fully grasp the devastation) but the 2nd one was definitely wrong.
 
I wasn’t alive during that era, so I can only speak from the perspective of hindsight. I tend to side with the priests the OP references. The ends never justify an evil means. We did it, and we own it. I believe it is now our obligation to do our best to see that it never happens again.
 
Well, as far as the first, it wasn’t as if they had no idea what would happen. The U.S. had conducted several tests on the Bikini Atoll(s) and in the New Mexico desert, right? Or am I confusing these tests with the Cold War era?
 
I just watched the video. He is actually arguing from the point of view of a historian and arguing away the false narrative that the only reason we dropped them was to scare the Russians.

He’s not arguing from a Catholic Moral teaching point of view. However, he does emphasize that the Japanese govt was planning to make all civilians members of the militia and they were going to force a ground war.

So again, he’s not arguing as a priest. He’s arguing, as a professor of history, mostly against the false narrative that casts a shadow over Truman’s motives & legacy.
 
ChuckWilson said:
Well, as far as the first, it wasn’t as if they had no idea what would happen. The U.S. had conducted several tests on the Bikini Atoll(s) and in the New Mexico desert, right? Or am I confusing these tests with the Cold War era?
Click to expand...
There was only one real test.
 
Not specifically, but she does teach against all the things that those bombs were used for. I think it’s rather wrong to attack a civilian population, and kill at the time what would have been elderly men because they couldn’t serve in the military, women, and children, including pregnant women. I cannot imagine a priest defending that and also not supporting abortion. I am legitimately disgusted by the amount of Catholics that think that this is something that we’re allowed to defend, no it violates the just War Doctrine. I think if you get the time, go to the biblical evidence for Catholicism blog, by Dave Armstrong, he has some excellent articles on it.
 
You have to put yourself into the context of Kamikazes, the Japanese had lost all semblance of humanity, and in order to defend truly innocent (American) lives, the bombs were the best option, and they did work.
 
I guess that’s true. He never argued the moral teaching. I wish he could have both argued away the false historical narratives and defended Catholic moral teaching in the same video. I think he definitely could have done that. Avoiding the hardcore conservative and liberal views on it and take the more nuanced Catholic approach. To me, it is just weird to not see priests more directly stand up for Church teaching.
 
Not just American lives but other lives. The lives of the innocent Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Singaporeans and other Southeast Asians who continue to be brutalized by the Imperial Japanese Army.

I am very confident that the Japanese would continue to brutalize the people they conquered if it were not for the surrender of the Japanese government. This surrender was brought about by the two atomic bombs.
 
Last edited:
But the ends do not justify the means. One can not engage in immoral acts to achieve a “good” outcome. If it immoral to basically cook to death innocent civilians, no matter what good might come out of it, such slaughter is immoral. The dropping of the A-bombs was not defensive, nor was it a moral offensive maneuver.
 
CatholicAggie19 said:
I guess that’s true. He never argued the moral teaching. I wish he could have both argued away the false historical narratives and defended Catholic moral teaching in the same video. I think he definitely could have done that. Avoiding the hardcore conservative and liberal views on it and take the more nuanced Catholic approach. To me, it is just weird to not see priests more directly stand up for Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with that… you can’t judge decisions made in history based on what we know where the after effects.

We can only judge them based on the information they had at the time.

Truman choose what he believed was the lesser of two evils. He was deciding between killing between 129,000 and 226,000 Japanese civilians vs. killing millions of civilians with an all out invasion.

There were 71,998,104 people living in Japan in 1945. 22.8% lived in the cities (down from 37.7% in 1940).

An all-out invasion of Japan would have lead to MILLIONS dying - esp since the Japanese govt was drafting almost all civilians into a militia to protect the home islands.

It can be argued that there was no real moral choice for Truman. If he didn’t drop the bombs, millions would have died. If he didn’t invade Japan and didn’t drop the bombs, the war would have continued. The Japanese military’s sense of honor made it impossible for them to surrender. It took the bombs to convince the emperor that there was no honor in continuing.

So yes, dropping nukes on civilians is morally wrong. But SOMETIMES (even in a Just War), military leaders are forced to choose to lesser of two evils.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
“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.” (Gaudium et Spes)
 
Rob2 said:
“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.” (Gaudium et Spes)
Click to expand...
No one is arguing anything different.

However, Truman wasn’t Catholic and Gaudium et Spes was written in 1965
 
Rob2 said:
“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.” (Gaudium et Spes)
Click to expand...
And neither of the bombs were “aimed indiscriminately.”
 
ChuckWilson said:
But the ends do not justify the means. One can not engage in immoral acts to achieve a “good” outcome. If it immoral to basically cook to death innocent civilians, no matter what good might come out of it, such slaughter is immoral. The dropping of the A-bombs was not defensive, nor was it a moral offensive maneuver.
Click to expand...
Again… no one is saying that it was.

The priest did not say Truman made a moral choice. He said Truman made a choice that any moral person would make.

Again, Truman was stuck between two immoral choices and choose the lesser of two evils (literally).
 
Last edited:
Rob2 said:
40.png
phil19034:
However, Truman wasn’t Catholic and Gaudium et Spes was written in 1965
Click to expand...
What’s that got to do with it ?
Click to expand...
You are the one who brought up Gaudium et Spes, not me. 🙂
I’m saying you can’t use Gaudium et Spes (which was written in 1965) to judge Truman.

And again, the priest who made this video did NOT claim that dropping the bombs was THE moral thing to do.

He was simply arguing against the false narratives and arguing that Truman choose the lesser of two evils… a decision that many moral men would have made in Truman place.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top