On Catholics Defending the Indefensible

A friend of mine showed me a statement made by a priest claiming the use of atomic weapons against Japan was justified. I can understand how some people can believe it to be true... 20 years ago, I believed it (much to my regret).

But that was before I knew the what and why of the Church teaching against it.

But when the Church teaching says...

80. The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed, if the kind of instruments which can now be found in the armories of the great nations were to be employed to their fullest, an almost total and altogether reciprocal slaughter of each side by the other would follow, not to mention the widespread devastation that would take place in the world and the deadly after effects that would be spawned by the use of weapons of this kind.

All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.(1) The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.

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 #80 emphasis added)

...then it follows no defense of these atomic attacks can ever be justified by Catholic teaching.

Not Double Effect

Sure, some may try to justify it by double effect, pointing out that countless more may have died without it, but that is misapplied. Double effect requires that the death of innocents be unintended -- something definitely not the case with an indiscriminate weapon that destroyed an entire city.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact Fallacy

Also, it argues using the fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact. There were indeed claims (based on the Japanese government wanting to mobilize the entire population for a suicidal defense) that the invasion of the home islands would cause over a million casualties -- but that's assuming that all the civilians would agree.

As my friend pointed out...

"This idea really creates an unrealistic stereotype of the Japanese which serves the purposes of the person making the argument. The arguer turns the Japanese people into a group of mostly hardcore fanatics who are ready and willing to throw themselves vainly at the Allied troops without much thought for personal safety. In essence, they are dehumanized - turned into caricatures of people, without any thought of things like life, family, or future. The Japanese people become almost incapable of individual thought in this scenario. It is both insulting and unrealistic. There is no doubt that some Japanese would have resisted in this fashion, but by no means would it be the situation conjured up by proponents of the bombings."

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Also, I've seen arguments demanding, "tell us what should have been done differently!"  But that's shifting the burden of proof. If one alleges the use of these weapons was moral, that person has the burden of proof to show it to be moral.

Conclusion

Because the Catholic Church teaches that these weapons are "a crime against God and man himself," to defend the use of atomic weapons is to deny the authority of the Church to teach on the subject. Perhaps even denying that anything not using extraordinary infallibility is binding.

But before they do, they should consider the words of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis #20...

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

When the Pope or an ecumenical council uses the ordinary magisterium to teach, it is not a matter where we can go against the Church.

On Catholics Defending the Indefensible

A friend of mine showed me a statement made by a priest claiming the use of atomic weapons against Japan was justified. I can understand how some people can believe it to be true... 20 years ago, I believed it (much to my regret).

But that was before I knew the what and why of the Church teaching against it.

But when the Church teaching says...

80. The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed, if the kind of instruments which can now be found in the armories of the great nations were to be employed to their fullest, an almost total and altogether reciprocal slaughter of each side by the other would follow, not to mention the widespread devastation that would take place in the world and the deadly after effects that would be spawned by the use of weapons of this kind.

All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.(1) The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.

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 #80 emphasis added)

...then it follows no defense of these atomic attacks can ever be justified by Catholic teaching.

Not Double Effect

Sure, some may try to justify it by double effect, pointing out that countless more may have died without it, but that is misapplied. Double effect requires that the death of innocents be unintended -- something definitely not the case with an indiscriminate weapon that destroyed an entire city.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact Fallacy

Also, it argues using the fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact. There were indeed claims (based on the Japanese government wanting to mobilize the entire population for a suicidal defense) that the invasion of the home islands would cause over a million casualties -- but that's assuming that all the civilians would agree.

As my friend pointed out...

"This idea really creates an unrealistic stereotype of the Japanese which serves the purposes of the person making the argument. The arguer turns the Japanese people into a group of mostly hardcore fanatics who are ready and willing to throw themselves vainly at the Allied troops without much thought for personal safety. In essence, they are dehumanized - turned into caricatures of people, without any thought of things like life, family, or future. The Japanese people become almost incapable of individual thought in this scenario. It is both insulting and unrealistic. There is no doubt that some Japanese would have resisted in this fashion, but by no means would it be the situation conjured up by proponents of the bombings."

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Also, I've seen arguments demanding, "tell us what should have been done differently!"  But that's shifting the burden of proof. If one alleges the use of these weapons was moral, that person has the burden of proof to show it to be moral.

Conclusion

Because the Catholic Church teaches that these weapons are "a crime against God and man himself," to defend the use of atomic weapons is to deny the authority of the Church to teach on the subject. Perhaps even denying that anything not using extraordinary infallibility is binding.

But before they do, they should consider the words of Pope Pius XII in Humani generis #20...

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

When the Pope or an ecumenical council uses the ordinary magisterium to teach, it is not a matter where we can go against the Church.

Fallen America

It is such a quiet thing to fall... but far more terrible is to admit it.

--Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords

Introduction

I hear people debating from time on if America will lose its freedom. My take is to say, "What do you mean If?"

I don't say that to be facetious. I say it because it is true. Certain groups of Americans have lost their freedoms of expression if it goes against the behaviors which the government and media elites have decided to support.

Now loss of freedom does not automatically mean 'totalitarian dictatorship.' There are certainly degrees of infringement. A military junta will behave in a different manner than a nation which imagines itself to be a democracy under the rule of law.

So, in writing on this loss of freedom, I'm not equating what goes on here with what goes on in North Korea or the Middle East. Rather, I am pointing out that, compared to what our Constitution professes, our nation is now interfering with religious freedom.

Also,  I'm not dealing with non government attacks. Individuals favoring unconstitutional laws are foolish, but not doing something illegal -- it's when they become law, or executive order or a Court ruling that they become relevant to this article.

Understanding Freedom

One of the problems is understanding what freedom means. In modern thought, it is taken to mean I may do what I wish without any restriction. But the problem with this concept is it means too much. It means a law which interferes with my whims restricts freedom... regardless of what my whim may be.

That's not freedom. That's called anarchy.

Freedom is the ability to do what we ought to do without being hindered. If I believe I am obligated to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the government does not have the right to hinder this.

It's stupid to say "I'm not free" if I can't have public access to large quantities of drugs and women of loose women." Nobody is entitled to that.

But it's not stupid to say "I'm not free" if the government can tell me that I or my business must go against that which God commands I must do or must not do.

The first example says "The law must sanction my wants." The second says "the law cannot interfere with my obligations before God."

That's an important distinction. Nobody's conscience tells them "I must abort my child" or "I must engage in homosexual activity." It does tell them "I must not murder," or "I must obey God."

So if the law tells a person "you must support that which your conscience forbids," the law is unjust. And really, the first amendment seems built around the right of the individual not to be forced to do what is evil and to speak out in defending that right.

What the Constitution Says

When the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We see that the Government cannot mandate a State Religion that others must follow. Nor can it interfere with the free exercise of a religion. If the government interferes with how a person carries out their religious faith,  they are violating the certain unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence) which no government can bestow or take away.

A religion holds members to following a certain moral code, where refusing obedience is sinning against God. So it follows that laws which prevent the following of that moral code do prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Laws and Court Decisions Violate the Constitution

But it is this free exercise of religion which Federal and State governments do violate. The HHS contraceptive mandate decrees that schools and hospitals attached to a church do not have the right to refuse providing contraception to employees who demand it -- even though that interferes with the free exercise of religion of the religion that established them.

Religion is not merely worship or ritual. It involves doctrine and moral teaching. It involves obligation for those who confess it to be true. The government cannot interfere with the individual who believes their religious beliefs says they cannot do a thing...

...But the government does interfere. They say that the man who refuses to participate in providing services recognizing "gay marriage" by making a cake or providing photographs can face legal action. The business that refuses to pay for abortion services out of religious conviction can face ruinous fines. The religious pharmacists who refuse to distribute abortifacients can be fired.

Schools run by churches, which have a right to be concerned about the moral example set for students by teachers, get sued if they fire a teachers who creates a scandal by public immorality.

Let's not forget that in San Antonio, a proposed city ordinance seeks to bar people from city government those who "demonstrated bias" against people with a same sex attraction... something so vague that it can exclude who say they think so-called "gay marriage" is wrong.

This not only violates the 1st amendment by interfering with the free exercise of religion, but it violates Article VI of the Constitution by imposing a religion test:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Article VI).

Because the government (via Justice Kennedy) has decreed all opposition to homosexual behavior is based on intolerance, the City Council of San Antonio can decide that religious beliefs disqualifies one from city service.

It is quite clear that the US Government in its laws, executive orders and court decisions is violating the Constitution.

Conclusion

America is not in danger of losing freedom. No, our government has taken away freedom already -- with the support of many who short sightedly hate us for speaking against evil, and the tolerance of those who are either ignorant or apathetic about what is being done.

The fall was quiet. But admitting it is the terrible thing... and I think many would rather deny it than face the reality and have to do something about it.

Fallen America

It is such a quiet thing to fall... but far more terrible is to admit it.

--Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords

Introduction

I hear people debating from time on if America will lose its freedom. My take is to say, "What do you mean If?"

I don't say that to be facetious. I say it because it is true. Certain groups of Americans have lost their freedoms of expression if it goes against the behaviors which the government and media elites have decided to support.

Now loss of freedom does not automatically mean 'totalitarian dictatorship.' There are certainly degrees of infringement. A military junta will behave in a different manner than a nation which imagines itself to be a democracy under the rule of law.

So, in writing on this loss of freedom, I'm not equating what goes on here with what goes on in North Korea or the Middle East. Rather, I am pointing out that, compared to what our Constitution professes, our nation is now interfering with religious freedom.

Also,  I'm not dealing with non government attacks. Individuals favoring unconstitutional laws are foolish, but not doing something illegal -- it's when they become law, or executive order or a Court ruling that they become relevant to this article.

Understanding Freedom

One of the problems is understanding what freedom means. In modern thought, it is taken to mean I may do what I wish without any restriction. But the problem with this concept is it means too much. It means a law which interferes with my whims restricts freedom... regardless of what my whim may be.

That's not freedom. That's called anarchy.

Freedom is the ability to do what we ought to do without being hindered. If I believe I am obligated to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the government does not have the right to hinder this.

It's stupid to say "I'm not free" if I can't have public access to large quantities of drugs and women of loose women." Nobody is entitled to that.

But it's not stupid to say "I'm not free" if the government can tell me that I or my business must go against that which God commands I must do or must not do.

The first example says "The law must sanction my wants." The second says "the law cannot interfere with my obligations before God."

That's an important distinction. Nobody's conscience tells them "I must abort my child" or "I must engage in homosexual activity." It does tell them "I must not murder," or "I must obey God."

So if the law tells a person "you must support that which your conscience forbids," the law is unjust. And really, the first amendment seems built around the right of the individual not to be forced to do what is evil and to speak out in defending that right.

What the Constitution Says

When the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We see that the Government cannot mandate a State Religion that others must follow. Nor can it interfere with the free exercise of a religion. If the government interferes with how a person carries out their religious faith,  they are violating the certain unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence) which no government can bestow or take away.

A religion holds members to following a certain moral code, where refusing obedience is sinning against God. So it follows that laws which prevent the following of that moral code do prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Laws and Court Decisions Violate the Constitution

But it is this free exercise of religion which Federal and State governments do violate. The HHS contraceptive mandate decrees that schools and hospitals attached to a church do not have the right to refuse providing contraception to employees who demand it -- even though that interferes with the free exercise of religion of the religion that established them.

Religion is not merely worship or ritual. It involves doctrine and moral teaching. It involves obligation for those who confess it to be true. The government cannot interfere with the individual who believes their religious beliefs says they cannot do a thing...

...But the government does interfere. They say that the man who refuses to participate in providing services recognizing "gay marriage" by making a cake or providing photographs can face legal action. The business that refuses to pay for abortion services out of religious conviction can face ruinous fines. The religious pharmacists who refuse to distribute abortifacients can be fired.

Schools run by churches, which have a right to be concerned about the moral example set for students by teachers, get sued if they fire a teachers who creates a scandal by public immorality.

Let's not forget that in San Antonio, a proposed city ordinance seeks to bar people from city government those who "demonstrated bias" against people with a same sex attraction... something so vague that it can exclude who say they think so-called "gay marriage" is wrong.

This not only violates the 1st amendment by interfering with the free exercise of religion, but it violates Article VI of the Constitution by imposing a religion test:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Article VI).

Because the government (via Justice Kennedy) has decreed all opposition to homosexual behavior is based on intolerance, the City Council of San Antonio can decide that religious beliefs disqualifies one from city service.

It is quite clear that the US Government in its laws, executive orders and court decisions is violating the Constitution.

Conclusion

America is not in danger of losing freedom. No, our government has taken away freedom already -- with the support of many who short sightedly hate us for speaking against evil, and the tolerance of those who are either ignorant or apathetic about what is being done.

The fall was quiet. But admitting it is the terrible thing... and I think many would rather deny it than face the reality and have to do something about it.

TFTD: Two Minute Hate

In George Orwell's 1984, we see a propaganda tool called Two Minute Hate. The tactic is to portray a vilified person on TV spewing their hostility to the regime accompanied by sounds and images designed to irritate the audience. The result was it was impossible not to be affected in hating the identified enemy and corresponding favor of the regime.

Now while we don't directly have a counterpart today (yet?), I was struck by a thought when reading this part of the novel -- isn't it curious how we see a disproportionate number of stories in the news about the Westboro Baptists and pedophile priests whenever the Catholic Church makes a stand for what God teaches, such as the teachings on homosexuality and contraception?

It's as if people in the media want to discredit the Church to induce hate in a "this is what they stand for" message.

TFTD: Two Minute Hate

In George Orwell's 1984, we see a propaganda tool called Two Minute Hate. The tactic is to portray a vilified person on TV spewing their hostility to the regime accompanied by sounds and images designed to irritate the audience. The result was it was impossible not to be affected in hating the identified enemy and corresponding favor of the regime.

Now while we don't directly have a counterpart today (yet?), I was struck by a thought when reading this part of the novel -- isn't it curious how we see a disproportionate number of stories in the news about the Westboro Baptists and pedophile priests whenever the Catholic Church makes a stand for what God teaches, such as the teachings on homosexuality and contraception?

It's as if people in the media want to discredit the Church to induce hate in a "this is what they stand for" message.

Tablet Thoughts: Burden of Proof

Read more »