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.
C

Curious11

Guest
I guess this enters into the wider debate of: can a Catholic ever believe that the ends can justify the means? I ask this because there are times where there is no good choice or easy answers
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure it is a clear violation of just war theory that the church has developed in its moral theology.

Intuitively, I would say it’s a gross human rights violation that can in no way be condoned.
 
Last edited:
Funny because on EWTN ray arroyo defended the atomic bomb
 
The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 was a rather brutal affair too. I’m not debating who was morally superior; however, the initial Roman response of blockading the city and pursuing negotiations were good. The complete slaughter that ensued wasn’t just though…

As I see it, it’s better to gain the upper hand and then weaken an enemy by denying supplies. Then proceed with peace negotiations followed by disarmament. Sun Tzu never advocated pressing your opponent too far.
 
The Principle of Double Effect (endorsed by the Church) says that one cannot promote an intrinsically evil outcome if that intrinsically evil outcome is being used as a means to achieve some good outcome. Thus, on the understanding that the deaths in Hiroshima were the intended means by which Truman meant to win the war, the bombing was a case of mass murder. If someone wants to argue that Truman did not intend to use these deaths to end the war, they may do so, though I think such an argument strains credulity.
 
There is not an “official” Church position on every human act or news story. Pull back and look at the big picture. As mentioned, if innocents were killed then it could not be justified. The basic rule is that it is never permissible to do evil that good may come of it.
 
Hard answer are indeed answers.
Not everything in life is easily hased out, but we hope for truth, mercy, justice.
 
Regardless of the “official Church position”, I’m sure thousands of Catholic wives, mamas and girlfriends all across the USA, many of whom had already lost one or more loved ones in WWII, were relieved that their men would be returning home and not have to fight a land war in Japan.

My husband, who enjoys online genealogy as his hobby, happened to find my grandfather’s WWII draft card online the other week. Granddad had to register for the draft in the fourth round. He was 61 at the time. They were registering men up to age 65. That’s how bad it had got.

Also, my dad was fighting in the Pacific at that time, so if the war hadn’t been brough to a swift end, I probably wouldn’t be sitting here to type this as I might not have ever been born. My uncle, Dad’s older brother, had already been killed in the Pacific at Midway, leaving no progeny.

Putting this in the past, I agree we should all work very hard for peace and to prevent ever having to use nuclear weapons in any conflict going forward.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
were relieved that their men would be returning home and not have to fight a land war in Japan.
Click to expand...
I know most believe that the atomic bomb was responsible for the Japanese surrender but some experts question this. Some argue that it was when the Japanese lost the support of the Russians that’s when Japan surrendered unconditionally.
 
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. The most glaring example is the use of atomic weapons, and other weapons aimed at indiscriminate killing of a populace. Collateral damage is allowable, but only in a limited way. Every effort must be made to limit collateral damage.

Currently, the United States stick to this pretty well. Targets are evaluated as to what size of ordinance is needed for each target in order to accomplish the objective with the minimum amount of collateral damage. Furthermore, the more powerful the ordinance needed, the higher up the chain of command approval is needed, and the greater scrutiny the target is given.
 
It’s easy to Monday-morning quarterback a war, especially now that most of the generation that actually lived through it, which included both of my parents and all of my uncles and aunts who survived it (one of my aunts was in it as a military nurse), is dying off. I refuse to engage.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
The Principle of Double Effect (endorsed by the Church) says that one cannot promote an intrinsically evil outcome if that intrinsically evil outcome is being used as a means to achieve some good outcome.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Collateral damage is allowable,
Click to expand...
The bulk of deaths attached to the atomic bomb dropping were of course not “collateral”. They were inherent to the nature of exploding atomic bombs in cities. Some people erroneously relegate to ”collateral” that which was not the intended target. Of course, in the case of Hiroshima, those innocents may also have been the target. I don’t know.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Of course, in the case of Hiroshima, those innocents may also have been the target. I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Most definitely they were in the case of Hiroshima. Nagasaki was the better military target. The bombing was designed to kill people though, and thus have the psychological shock to end the war. If all that was wanted was a demonstration, a purely military target could have been chosen. The targets were a regretful exercise of utilitarianism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top