What is the official Church position regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
While this is true, there’s no need to appeal to double effect. If the act done has as a moral object the death of innocents - which is surely the case in dropping atomic bombs - the act is intrinsically evil and hence doomed.
Click to expand...
But Truman could claim that the object was not the death of innocents, but the destruction of war apparatus. (I’m not saying that is a plausible claim, mind you).
 
pnewton said:
I will say one thing in defense of Truman. It is not possible to be morally accountable for what one does not know. Just War Doctrine, as we have it today, was not know then.
Click to expand...
Huh? The American army had a longstanding policy of not doing things like Hiroshima. We deliberately changed that policy with the bombing of Dresden. Just war theory (roughly similar to that of Aquinas) was well known to many of those making the decisions.
 
I tried to find that. I even read what Aquinas said, which did not address anything analogous to Nuclear weapons. Do you know where I might find this earlier doctrine?

Let me correct myself. I read some of what St. Thomas said. I do not think anyone has ever read everything he said. 😀
 
Last edited:
The Church rarely, if ever, takes a clear yes or no position on public events.
It does have clear principles but prominent theologians and personages regularly disagree on the application here.

American Catholics are still in an unrecognised conflicted state over these bombings.

As others here observe, America had much to gain by the bombing even if it wasn’t necessary to win the war which almost everyone agrees was a foregone conclusion. But it meant it ended much earlier with much less loss.

Non Catholic Americans almost unanimously see it as justified.
There Catholic brothers and sisters seem to perform triple backward somersaults to make it fit Catholic just war principles.

As a Catholic outsider who is not biased in this way I have never found such arguments just war arguments convincing. But then my family nor I didn’t suffer from that war but have reaped the benefits.

Just war theory is a fine thing
but needs must when the devil drives.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I tried to find that. I even read what Aquinas said, which did not address anything analogous to Nuclear weapons. Do you know where I might find this earlier doctrine?
Click to expand...
See “Innocence Lost:

Citation therein:

“Aquinas questions whether it is permissible to kill innocents, supporting the contention that this distinction up to this point had been understood in terms of moral guilt and innocence. “…the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore, it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.”[15]”
 
They weren’t “innocents”, they were aiding and abetting the enemy!
(There is always a great backward somersault rebuff for every airtight argument)
 
the atomic bombing of japan was and is completely justified

thousands of lives (american & japanese) were saved

all japan had to do was surrender after their horrific, bloody defeat at okinawa

but they refused; and in fact, were ramping up for the next phase of the war

which would’ve been hand-to-hand combat in japan itself

the blood thirsty war criminals who ran japan under the guise of the “divine” ruler hirohito were ready, willing and able to embark on this course

of course the good whooping the soviets put on them in final battles of ww2 in manchuria took out whatever starch the japanese had in their linen after the a-bombs were dropped
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
40.png
pnewton:
I will say one thing in defense of Truman. It is not possible to be morally accountable for what one does not know. Just War Doctrine, as we have it today, was not know then.
Click to expand...
Huh? The American army had a longstanding policy of not doing things like Hiroshima. We deliberately changed that policy with the bombing of Dresden. Just war theory (roughly similar to that of Aquinas) was well known to many of those making the decisions.
Click to expand...
Just war theory was first formulated by Augustine when he considered that the Roman Empire could be justified in defending itself against barbarian invaders, but not in its imperialistic conquests of outside lands and peoples. Aquinas formalized Augustine’s important points and refined the theory to make it more comprehensive.

The problem with just war theory is that weapons of mass destruction were not around at the time and thus strategic or preemptive response to an aggressor that might use such weapons was not considered by Aquinas and leaves modern theorists with a very unique set of possibilities. The question isn’t an easy one to answer morally.

If North Korea poses a credible threat to another country, would a preemptive attack be justified? There are no easy answers, and principles that could be appealed to in the past are simply inadequate given current destructive possibilities
 
That’s precisely the argument many US Catholics use to justify the bombing.
It isn’t new.
 
yes i am catholic

on the old board i had a marian avatar

haven’t figured out how to do that in this place 😦
 
Prodigal_Son said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
There are no easy answers
Click to expand...
Sure there are. Morality doesn’t change when technology changes.

This is not EMOTIONALLY easy. But it is true.
Click to expand...
It may not necessarily change when technology changes, but when that technology is in the hands of morally insane individuals the options to be responded to don’t necessarily follow standard moral guidelines.
 
HarryStotle said:
It may not necessarily change when technology changes, but when that technology is in the hands of morally insane individuals the options to be responded to don’t necessarily follow standard moral guidelines.
Click to expand...
OK, so this is a question of self-defense. My understanding is that it is not morally permissible to kill a four-year-old child who has pulled a gun on you. But this is surely a complicated situation, emotionally. Is this the type of thing you have in mind?
 
Last edited:
But morality is not about what people would actually do. It’s about what is right.

Catholic teaching says that it is wrong to kill an innocent in self-defense. This is why abortion cannot be justified by self-defense, in any circumstance.
 
Would you view a fetus that posed a serious risk to a woman’s life as an innocent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top