Note to Catholics:

Last updated on: August 11, 2010 at 7:03 am by Dave Griffey

Note to Catholics: 2010-08-11T07:03:00-04:00 Dave Griffey

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Even being right can end up being wrong. I’ve been following Mark Shea’s annual discussion of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close of WWII. It’s no secret, or shouldn’t be, that the official stance of the Catholic Church is general condemnation of the bombings. In addition, unlike many others who merely focus on the A-bombs, the Church takes the extra step to remind people it isn’t being fickle, but that the condemnations fit into a larger, comprehensive teaching that is boiled down to concern for the dignity of the human person made in God’s image. Thus, not only are the A-bombs condemned, but the fire bombings, or any attacks that were aimed at civilian population centers. Even if there was another, justifiable reason behind them – like destroying a key military target, or the more general desire to end the war – it doesn’t matter. Aiming at civilians and firing is wrong – always – no matter how just the reasons behind it may be. This is condemning an approach to morality that is known as consequentialism.

Consequentialism, in a nutshell, says that it is acceptable to do something horrible as long as its for the greater good. Such as dropping the atomic bombs on cities filled with thousands of elderly, women, children, and non-combatant men. The Church has made it clear that such is incompatible with Christian morality. To be Catholic, to base one’s moral compass on the Church’s guidance, is to concede that fact no matter how difficult.

In explaining this, however, the Catholic apologist must be careful. One of the pitfalls of apologetics, and why I generally hesitate to delve into that branch of Christian ministry, is its own version of consequentialist tactics for winning theological arguments. This can be seen by some who rightly argue for the clear teachings of the Catholic Church, while then turning around and doing so in ways incompatible with moral, honest, grace-filled instruction.

For instance, the facts. Being right about morals doesn’t give the right to twist facts, inflate events, ignore inconvenient arguments, or worse, bear false witness or falsely accuse. It should not involved sweeping condemnation or impugning the morals of those with whom we disagree. It should not be buying into silly theories or conspiracy nonsense without damn good evidence to back it up. Thus, it’s OK to say Truman (and also Roosevelt, don’t forget) was wrong to OK the bombings. But we need not add to it every wild, harebrained theory that Truman was really part of some vast, anti-Catholic conspiracy to murder Catholics in Nagasaki, that he knew Japan only wanted peace, love and John Lennon songs but just wanted to slaughter babies, that Truman molested teddy bears, or anything else. It’s enough to stay with the facts as known.

It also does well to avoid polemical history to justify the stance. Not only does it run into the danger of suggesting, however subtly, that if there really was a utilitarian reason for the bombings then it would be OK, but it can be wrong. The idea that every thinking person knew the bombings were wrong since Japan merely wanted peace and all the signs were disregarded is a very, very biased interpretation of the events. It fails to take into account the lack of contemporary (c. August 1, 1945) documentation that suggests peace was right around the corner, fails to take into account any potential biases on the part of those who later condemned the bombings (while, of course, emphasizing the bias of those who support them), and generally ignores the growing evidence that Japan was anything but ready to capitulate on the eve of the attacks (this last brought out by the increased pressure on Japan in recent years to fess up to its own atrocities in the war).

In short, it’s enough to point to the teaching of the Church on the subject. It’s enough to say that there could have been an alternative. A real, positive alternative. Not one that could be as morally suspect as dropping the bombs. It also avoids the idea that the justification for the teachings rests on highly partistan reading of the historical data. And it certainly avoids the potential pitfall of the ‘sword of the Lord’ approach to apologetics: that I am so the mouthpiece of the living God, that his commandments (like call no one fool, don’t bear false witness, judge not, and others) no longer apply to me. Once those begin to crop up, ironically, the teaching being advanced becomes swept up in the maelstrom of charge and counter charge, and fair minded people seeking the Truth are confronted with two arguments, both of which appear to be flawed.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 10, 2010

American male adheres to modern standards

Next Post

August 11, 2010 High Priest of Secular Religion inadvertently makes us laugh

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Atheism Awesome things Bigotry for the hip American Blogging Books Catholic Catholic Teaching Catholics on the Internet Christian Persecution Christian Unity Christianity and America Christianity in the Post-Modern World Christianity in the world Culture of Death Culture of Life Current Events Decline and Fall of the Christian West Defending Liberty Fun Stuff Global Warming Good Causes Good News Gun Control Health Care History Holidays Homeschool Humor Important things Inspiring Stories Interesting Insights Interesting Stories Islam and the West Liberal "Tolerance" Liberal observations Life in a post-Christian world Memorial Movies Musings News Other Blogs Our Big Politically Correct Bother Politics Popular Culture Post Modern Values Prayers Pro Life Promoting LGBT Protecting Liberty Racism in the world today Scientism Social Observations Sports Strange Stories The Boys The Catholic Church and the Left The Decline and Fall of the American Dream The end of liberty The Faith and the Left The Faith and the Right The Family The Greatness of God The Internet The Leftist Juggernaut The LGBT Question The Media The Pope The post-liberal Left The Power of Propaganda Tributes Twilight of the American Experiment Uncategorized Uneducating Postmoderns When the Church is wrong Why learn from history when we can repeat it instead Wisdom in the Post Modern Age World Events

Select a Month August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was high priest when David ate the consecrated bread?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Caiaphas Aaron Ahimelech Eli