How The Discussion of The Atomic Bombing of Japan Came To A Premature End- Catholics Talk The Atomic Bombing of Japan

Well it is atomic bomb week in Catholic blog land. This year the conversation so far seems a little more muted than previous years. In the past it has got nasty with Internet friends getting so mad they refuse to talk or to link to each other again. Long time readers of Catholic blogs get so mad as to this topic if the person takes a position that is different than their own they swear off the blog forever.

If there is a time to review civility as to the Internet this is the time. I expect tomorrow we shall see a lot of posts because on that date a significant number of Japanese Catholics were vaporized in the second bombing.

What makes this debate interesting on the Catholic side is that opposition to the atomic bombing does not fit nicely into traditional political camps. That is in Catholic circles there is considerable conservative Catholic opposition to the thought that this was valid choice by the United States.

For instance Jimmy Akin , who is no liberal, enters the fray today at Commemorating a Major U.S. War Crime. At the conservative leaning First Things we have Remembering Hiroshima. These people are mostly in line with the more progressive Catholic blog Vox Nova at 65 Years Ago Today.

I am not even getting into the significant Libertarian Catholic folks that on the whole seem very anti bombing atomic bombing of Japan.

For whatever reason there appears to much more of a diverse opinion on this question among conservative Catholics than we see in other faith communities with their members of a certain political bent.

Catholic apologist David Armstrong also finds the atomic bombing of Japan wrong and has a list of postd and resources on this here.

In his post Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Vatican II, the CCC, & US Bishops on the Morality of Nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki he lists a pretty impressive list of well known Orthodox Catholics, and those whose politics go tended to the "right".

Here are a few:
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a Catholic "traditionalist and well followed author
Pope John Paul II
Pope Pius XII
John J. Cardinal O'Connor
Noted Catholic Apologist Karl Keating
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani
Pat Buchanan
Ralph Raico, a scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute
Cardinal James Francis Stafford
Dr. Warren Carroll (Founder of Christendom College and renowned orthodox Catholic)
historian.
Fr. Michael Scanlan (formerly head of the Franciscan University of Steubenville , 1983)
Joseph Sobran (conservative columnist and author)
"Conservative" moral theologians John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, and Germain Grisez.

To that let met add a Catholic voice at the National Review .That being Dinesh D'souza who is following in the footsteps of the also Catholic William F Buckley who in the 50's was still expressing huge reservations over this.

These are just a few and of course all are very respected in the different factions of conservative Catholicism.

The beloved Bishop Fulton Sheen who was was very pro-military and was in American''s household every night via the TV said:
"When, I wonder, did we in America ever get into this idea that freedom means having no boundaries and no limits? I think it began on the 6th of August 1945 at 8:15 am when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima."

Now what is interesting is some of biggest religious and political leaders seemed to be engaging this conversation when the wounds of the war were pretty fresh.

Nowadays it seems if you hold these views or even bring them up it is like you are spitting on the flag.

What changed? My theory is the Cold War and that important doctrine of M.A.D - Mutually Assured Destruction. A few years ago there was a controversy over some remarks that President Reagan was alleged to have made. Reportedly he was asked what would he do if the Soviets launched a massive first strike. Would he push the button? It is alleged he said basically what would be the point!! Now people went berserk and said Reagan would never say such a thing and even if he did it was critical we did not talk about it.

Well they partly have a point. M.A.D was based on the premise that no matter what the other side would launch a massive nuclear strike in retaliation if the missiles were on the way. There could be no signs that this was not the case because if there were a political miscalculation on the the Soviet side as to our resolve it could cause the country to be destroyed. Therefore it was imperative that politicos and other leading public figures not get into a open moral debate on this in public view. I really think M.A.D on a political level and indeed on the grassroots level caused the discussion to be cut off to a large degree. Now you still had people (of a Conservative bent) discussing it but not to the degree we saw before the late 50's and not to the degree we even see now. Needless to say it appears one could have the conversation and not viewed as far left anti war peace nik.

Anyway it is interesting how this debate has occurred over the years and the robust Catholic discussion of this among ourselves seems to have increased over the last decade.