It was not moral for the U.S. to drop the atomic bomb

This may be a first for the Bubble: A discussion about the morality of dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to bring about the end of World War II. Many faithful Catholics in America are confused on this issue, so let's try to get clarity. 

First, please understand that confronting this issue did not come easy for me. When I finally came into my Faith twenty years ago after realizing that the Church is what she claims to be, I had to bend my will on a number of major issues. One of those issues was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. I had always been a supporter of that action, but I had to reverse my position. Once I decided that following Christ and His Church was more important to me than even my strong American sensibilities, there was no other option.*

Now, you all know how much I love and admire Dennis Prager. He is a Jewish scholar and commentator who is brilliant and logical and good, and it is his motto that undergirds my blog: "I prefer clarity to agreement." Recently, as part of the ongoing Prager University videos (which I normally adore), a priest gave a talk about why it was not wrong to drop the atom bomb on Japan. I cringed. I have no idea how the priest was able to argue that error in light of Church teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear:

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes. (CCC 2314)

There is no wiggle room here.

Now, I understand that many people of good will argue that The Bomb was simply the only course of action to preserve our nation, our freedom, our way of life, the lives of millions of innocents that may have perished if we didn't act, etc. They say that our action reduced net suffering and prevented the deaths of many more innocents than it caused, and that we mitigated a greater evil by performing these military strikes. That is the justification I used myself, and it's what I hear most often from supporters of the bombings.

But Catholics know from moral theology and Moral Reasoning 101 that we have no permission to sin, even if we mean to bring about a greater good. We've discussed before that the ends do not justify the means, ever.

Think about it logically: If we are permitted to commit evil in order to bring about good, then what on earth can't be justified? If we may target and kill a few hundred thousand non-combatants to win an important war, then why may others not kill a few million in gas chambers or gulags to save a nation and a way of life? Hypothetically, if I could save the whole world and all her treasures by torturing and murdering just one child (maybe your child?), I should do it, right?

Wrong.

Evil is evil and we may take no part in it, even to bring about a greater good. Heck, there is not a genocidal dictator who has ever lived who did not justify his crimes against humanity by appealing to what he believed to be a greater good.

Psychologically speaking, there is something else about the nature of the atomic bomb that lulls even good Catholics and good Americans into perceiving it as morally licit: When great distance lies between a killer and a victim, the conscience tends to deaden. Catholic Answers' writer Christopher Check ("Dropping the Atomic Bomb was Wrong. Period.") refers to retired Army Ranger Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's findings on the topic:

...while psychological trauma is not uncommon among infantrymen who have been in close combat, Col. Grossman did not find “a single instance of psychiatric trauma” associated with long-range killing. That includes the pilot and crew of the Enola Gay, the B-29 Super Fortress that dropped “Little Boy” on the people of Hiroshima. Indeed, Enola Gay’s pilot, Col. Paul Tibbets, went to his death claiming that he never felt guilt or lost sleep over having dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Indeed, he flew reenactments of the event at air shows. 

Grossman provides eerily antiseptic testimony given by Allied bomber pilots and crews who firebombed Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo. These campaigns together claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 noncombatants, mostly women, children, and elderly (because men of fighting age were off fighting). The bombers reported feeling “fascination” and “satisfaction” but not guilt or regret. 

Grossman’s argument should provoke us to ask if many people’s comfort with the bomb does not derive, at least in part, from a condition of distance from the event. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed an estimated 180,000 civilians. Would supporters of the bombings be as sanguine if a battalion of Marines had been sent into the same cities to bayonet an equal number of women, children, and elderly?

I am an American patriot and I love my country more than anything other than my Faith and my family. Accepting the fact that the U.S. was dead wrong in dropping The Bomb was one of the hardest things I had to do when I embraced the fullness of the Catholic Faith. But it was not hard for me to understand the moral principle: We don't target and kill innocent people, no matter what the cause, no matter the potentially disastrous outcome if we don't. We are to serve the good, not bring about the good. We act virtuously in our every action, and we leave the outcomes to God.

It is better, as Christ said, to lose our life to save it, than to save our life and lose it. What does it profit any of us to gain the whole world but lose our soul?

This world and this life are not the end. Winning a war or preserving a nation or even preserving the entire earth is not worth going to hell for. The priest in the Prager University video may be right on every other issue of the Faith, but he is dead wrong on this one.

We must think with the mind of the Church, act as Christ would act, and leave the outcomes to God.

+++++++

*Bending one's will to think with the mind of the Church is not a case of "blindly following". For perspective on this, read here.

If you read only one book this year, make it this one.

If you read only one book this year, I hope it will be:

What We Can't Not Know, by Professor J. Budziszewski

Not only will I be re-reading it myself, it will also be required reading for my older children.

I think I may be obsessed with it.

It takes me an inordinate amount of time to read a book these days, and in the past several months, I have been stealing every spare moment to read this one. I finally completed it. All along the way, I have been wanting to blog about what I have learned, and yet I knew I should finish it before I posted about it.

For years, I have had a vague notion of the natural law. And throughout the year or so that I have written this blog, I have alluded to natural law time and again, each time learning a little more about it myself. But I needed more.

Why?

Well, all the discussions we have had on this blog with our leftist/secular/atheist friends like College Student, L, Miss Gwen, MaiZeke, Michelle and Peter, have left so many of us Catholics frustrated, and even baffled. If you're like me, you have asked yourself a thousand times, "Did I read that right?" "Is that what she really wanted to say?" "He couldn't really mean that, could he?" and "How did we get to this place?"

I have often been kept awake at night, going over some of the positions and arguments of those whom we debate. The overriding sentiment of my heart and mind in the throes of the most troubling exchanges is: "But she knows that isn't right!" and "He can't not know that!"

Professor B helped me make sense of what we see playing out here on the Bubble, and even among our own friends and family. It is charitably written (Professor B himself was once a committed atheist), but clear and honest, pulling no punches. He covers the natural law tradition in a way that is understandable and then applies it to the cultural situation in which we find ourselves today.

It's important to note: The book is written for a Christian audience (or those who are "half-persuaded"), and not for atheists and secularists (although I cannot wait for that book, Professor B!). However, he does invite the secular left to read along if they are interested in how we Christians discuss this subject among ourselves. He says this to those on the other side of the culture war:

[Y]ou are not part of my expected audience. But that does not mean that I want to hide the book from you; you are welcome to be a fly on the wall and listen in. Nor does it mean that I don't want to talk to you; this particular book is not a good vehicle of that hoped-for conversation, but by all means let us talk. But let us be honest too. We are on different sides.

Some people consider it "uncivil" to say so. They think the "culture war" is the fault of people who admit there is a culture war, and that the very use of terms like "culture war" demonizes people on the other side. In their view, we must pretend that we all want the same things. But we don't all want the same things, do we?

No, we don't. And lemme tell you, that type of honesty and clarity is so refreshing in this politically correct, morally confused world. While it can be unsettling and overwhelming to be presented with a true picture of the problem that lies before us, it is necessary to know what we are up against. The book is also balm for my own soul, personally, as it confirms that what we have been doing here in the Bubble has a good purpose.

The book is divided into four main sections:

I. The Lost World 

(includes just what it is we can't not know)

II. Explaining the Lost World 

(includes the "four witnesses" to the natural law and some objections)

III. How the World was Lost 

(this is the section you must read; I'll get to that in a minute)

IV. Recovering the Lost World 

(includes the "public relations" of moral wrong and moral right)

My hope is that each and every one of you would have your own copy of the book to read for yourself and to have available for your children. But, realistically, I know that is not going to happen. So, here is my proposition to all of you busy folks who, like me, find it very difficult to commit (in time or finances) to yet another book. I originally read What We Can't Not Know on my Kindle. However, I recently bought two "real" copies of the book: One for me, and one for all of you.

Here's how I want it to work: I will mail the book to anyone who is committed to reading at least Section III of the book ("How the World Was Lost") in no more than seven days (it should take you much less time than that -- less than a day, actually -- but I want to give everyone a good week to get to it*). Then, your only other task is to mail it to the next person on the list, whose address I will supply to you. If you are interested, please email me at littlecatholicbubble@gmail.com, and I'll take it from there.

Catholics, I think it's that important. Understanding what Professor B lays out really is the key to understanding the morally chaotic world swirling around us. Please get this book. Or email me and I will get it to you.



*Of course, if anyone wants to read the whole book in those seven days, feel free! I just want to make sure the book keeps moving to those who want to read it. And don't be shy if you've never commented before but still want to receive the book. E-mail me!


-

Important follow-up to the Natural Family Planning post: "Isn't it the same as contraception?"

I can't believe I forgot to mention this in the Natural Family Planning post! There is one very common misunderstanding about NFP that comes in the form of a question like this:

"How is NFP different from contraception, since both of them are ways not to have a baby? I can't see a real difference, since the intention is the same: to prevent a pregnancy!"

The question assumes that avoiding pregnancy is inherently immoral according to the Catholic Church. But the Church does not teach this! In fact, it is not inherently immoral to avoid pregnancy.

The question is flawed because it forgets the distinction between the end (our intended goal) and the means (how we get to that goal).

For an act to be moral, both the end and the means must be moral.

The "end" in our particular question is "preventing pregnancy". That is the goal or intention, and it is not inherently evil. If serious reasons exist, a married couple is justified in postponing pregnancy, even indefinitely. So, in such a case, we've got a moral "end".

So far, so good!

But now what about the "means"?

Well, the means a couple uses to prevent pregnancy has to be moral, too. Like so many other things in life, we have a choice between moral and immoral ways to get to a good end. NFP is a moral means of preventing pregnancy, contraception is an immoral means of preventing pregnancy.

But why?

Well, because contraception fundamentally changes the very nature of sex. In some cases, the spouses' bodies themselves are altered through chemical or surgical means, and in other cases there is a literal, physical barrier put between husband and wife at the moment they are called to be united as "one flesh". Contraception subverts the inherent, purposeful connection between love and life (i.e., sex and procreation), and when those two dimensions of sex are artificially separated, the marital act itself becomes disordered. To deliberately sterilize the marital act is to strip it of its transcendence and meaning. Sex leaves the sacred and becomes common.

With NFP, by contrast, the spouses and the marital act remain untouched and unaltered. Husband and wife unite in love as they are designed, and fertility works within the rhythms that God (and Natural Law) intends. The integrity of the martial act is completely intact.

But wait! you might say. You are still manipulating the process by not having sex during times you might get pregnant! 

No, not manipulating. NFP users are working with the natural cycles of fertility and infertility that God Himself put in place. God could have chosen to make us fertile 100% of the time, but in fact He made us infertile the majority of the time. To prayerfully consider our situation and then avail ourselves of the naturally infertile times of a woman's cycle does not disrespect God's design or the Natural Law.

Remember, choosing to abstain from sex is not a sin. However, choosing to take the pleasure of sex while willfully disconnecting it from its full meaning is a sin.

This analogy may help:

Trixie and Pixie both want to lose weight. Losing weight is not inherently sinful, and can be a good goal.

Trixie's means to that end? She practices self-control and sacrifice by eating healthier meals and smaller portions, and even fasting for a time.

Pixie's means to that end? She eats all she wants, in any portion, heavy on the sweets and treats. Each time she is done indulging her palate, she retreats to the bathroom where she sticks her finger down her throat and vomits it all back up.

I hope we all can agree that Trixie's means of losing weight is moral and ordered, while Pixie's means of losing weight is immoral and disordered.

Bulimia contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of eating, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Contraception contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of sex, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Natural Family Planning is a good means to a good end, thus is ordered and moral.

Contraception? It's just sexual bulimia.



_______

Related Post: My NFP Plea: Stop Giving Warnings, and Rejoice!

Answer to Doctrinal Quiz Show, and Bubble Awards (with special new bonus)!

Would you all be offended if I said that I was greatly amused at the answers?? Not because they were way off-base (they weren't!!), but because we are such girls! (Well, all except Paul, and I'll get to him later!) I intended this to be merely a technical scenario, and not one in which we would wonder how we would actually "feel" (although I did use the word "horrified" to indicate that you did not intend to harm her), or what our instincts would be ("I swerve even for squirrels, gophers and cats!"), or what other little details we would add (air bags, a billion kids in the back, auto-eject seats). But I really love that most of you "went there" and made it very personal! And fun! You guys rock, and I would drive on a steep mountain road with you anytime! (Well, maybe not....)


Okay, here is the question again:

You are driving up a narrow two-lane road which winds steeply around a tall mountain. There are no other cars on the road, and you are going the speed limit on a clear day. As you come around yet another tight bend, you notice a young woman standing in the middle of the road. You are horrified! You cannot brake quickly enough to avoid hitting her, but you do have time to make a decision. You can choose to swerve to your right and face severe injury or death as you fly off the cliff; you can choose to swerve to the left and face severe injury or death by slamming into the side of the mountain; or, you can choose to go forward, which will mean certain death for the innocent young woman.

Morally, what option(s) may you choose, and why?

Here is the answer:

Morally, you may choose any of the three options. I purposely made swerving to the left or to the right equally dangerous (serious injury or death either way) so that you wouldn't be confused. But clearly, for most of you, slamming into a mountain of rock is the better way to go than flying off a cliff like Thelma and Louise. Those options are morally okay because you may legitimately choose to sacrifice your own life for the life of another.

However, the third option is open to you as well. Hitting the young woman would be a moral choice in this scenario under the principle of double effect.

Here's why: The action you would be performing (i.e., continuing to drive legally on a mountain road) is moral (unlike shooting someone in the head, as in our previous scenario). You foresee the death of the woman if you keep driving, but you do not will her death; you don't want to hit her or harm her in any way. The woman's death is foreseen but unintended. And, the effects of your act are proportionate: The good effect of staying on the road is that you stay alive; the bad effect is that the woman does not stay alive. The effects are equivalent or nearly equivalent.

I gotta tell ya, if it's me on that mountain road, that woman is toast. What is she doing standing in the middle of the road anyway??? Sheesh.

Okay, it's time for the most coveted, most anticipated BUBBLE AWARDS!!!

You know you've been practicing your acceptance speech for months now, and it might be your lucky day....

The Saint and Sinner Award goes to.... Sew!! For selflessly plowing into the side of a mountain to save an innocent woman's life, then vowing to hunt down and beat the woman if she's still alive to do it.

The Good Citizen Award goes to.... Chewspam!! For rear-ending a vehicle with an Obama sticker on the trunk! (I'm sorry... I couldn't help it.)

The Shamelessly Trying to Win A Bubble Award By Using Mountaintop Yoga Humor Award goes to... Lisa!! What, do you think I'm that easily manipulated?

The Wouldn't Throwing the Car Into Neutral Just Make You Roll Off the Mountain Backwards? Award goes to... Liesl!! Who had a unique but implausible idea, much like Marcy and Walter (who somehow believe they can speed dial 911 faster than they can apply the brakes)!

Now, MANY of you got the right answer, but only ONE of you came up with the magical words: "principle of double effect"! I could not be more impressed with the smartest ex-Catholic I have ever known. That's right... Paul Rimmer, by brilliantly explaining the principle that you explicitly reject, you have won the...

GRAND PRIZE BUBBLE AWARD!!!

Which now comes with a lovely, custom-made Bubble Award icon suitable for framing (makes a nice mantlepiece), or for use on your own blog if you are not afraid of being mocked and shunned! 

(Mrs. Blondies, I know you were dying for one of these icons, so you can feel free to claim it now, as can any other past Grand Prize Bubble Award winners!! Of course, I will understand if any or all of you choose to forgo this part of the honor. It is optional, if you read the fine print.)

Don't be envious, everyone else! There is always the next Doctrinal Quiz Show! Stay tuned!!

Doctrinal Quiz Show! Moral Reasoning 101: A Crazy New Scenario!

Remember the first Moral Reasoning 101 Quiz Show? You all did a great job! I would trust you with a room full of hostages any day.

Well, now it's time to challenge you with yet another extreme scenario which would never actually happen in real life, but which will serve to illustrate a point.

Okay, here ya go:

You are driving up a narrow two-lane road which winds steeply around a tall mountain. There are no other cars on the road, and you are going the speed limit on a clear day. As you come around yet another tight bend, you notice a young woman standing in the middle of the road. You are horrified! You cannot brake quickly enough to avoid hitting her, but you do have time to make a decision. You can choose to swerve to your right and face severe injury or death as you fly off the cliff; you can choose to swerve to the left and face severe injury or death by slamming into the side of the mountain; or, you can choose to go forward, which will mean certain death for the innocent young woman. 

Morally, what option(s) may you choose, and why?

Remember, Bubble Awards are at stake here, people, so think carefully!

And, no cheating!! Try not to look at others' answers before you write your own. Yes, I know it's tempting. But we Christians must fight temptation!

Go!

Answer to DQS, Moral Reasoning 101! The ends don't justify the means.

Wow! This may be the first Doctrinal Quiz Show where everyone got more or less the right answer! 

The dilemma was this:

Terrorists are holding you and hundreds of other innocent people hostage. You are told that if you press a button that will kill just one of the innocent hostages, you and all the others will be released unharmed. If you don't press the button, the terrorists will kill you and all of the hostages. Morally speaking, may you press the button? Why or why not?

I don't know if I can say it better than all of you did, so I am just going to pick out one of the answers and repost it. How 'bout... Sarah's:

Can't push the button. Human life is sacred. Every single life is as sacred and valuable as the next. You cannot make decisions on stats and numbers. It is utilitarian to do what would be best for "most people" if it means the destruction of even one. Now, it would be different if one person volunteered to die in place of the others. That is a heroic sacrifice. But the minute I push that button is the minute I kill a human being, I take their inherently valuable life, a life that was not mine to take. 

Some may say my refusal to push the button "killed" 100 people. No, if the terrorists go through with their threat, they are the killers.

Exactly! The end (saving lives) doesn't justify the means (murder of an innocent). 

In other words, we can never do an evil in order to bring about a good. 

We are to serve the good, not effect the good.

Remember, outcome is not our concern. God will take care of that, in His way. We simply do the will of the Lord in all things, and we leave the outcome and the judgement to Him. If a mass murder happens, the terrorists are culpable for that horrible crime. As Wheelbarrow Rider said, there are worse things than death.... And as Lowly beautifully quoted from Aristotle: It is better to have injustice done upon you, than to do an act of injustice upon another!

(The question of "double effect" is for another post, another day, but thank you to Lowly again for rightly pointing out that Megan's example was an example of double effect and did not apply to this case. Double effect would also apply in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Also, this is not a case of self-defense, as the person to be killed is not the aggressor.)

As Sarah mentioned, a person could volunteer to sacrifice his own life for another (or others). This is what Christ did for us on the Cross, and we know from Scripture that "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Such an act is not suicide but heroic virtue, and thanks to Ann for pointing out that St. Maximilian Kolbe did that very thing for a fellow prisoner at Auschwitz. 

Your answers are a great consolation to me, as almost everyone in my daughter's class answered the question the other way. 

In fact, one Christian mom (a good woman) told her daughter later that it would be immoral not to push the button! I wanted to give her another scenario to see if she still felt the same way: What if the terrorists told all the men to torture and rape the women, and they would all get to live? Would it be moral for the men to do so? What if the terrorists told you to kill all the small children and the rest of the group would be set free? Would that be a moral act? Or any other nightmare scenario you can dream up. Hopefully you see that we are not permitted to do evil, monstrous things even to bring about a great good.

Okay, enough of killing, rape and torture! On to Bubble Awards!!!

I can't award a Grand Prize because it was a huge tie!

So, some lesser awards, but still worth a place on your mantle:

The How'd She Do That?! Award goes to Lowly, for pulling a perfectly relevant Aristotle quote out of her head, clarifying a double effect scenario for another contestant, and profoundly declaring that "utilitarianism is yucky" all while working with a broken right shift button!

On the other hand, Lowly also gets the Laziness Is No Excuse For Bad Grammar Award! Congratulations, Lowly, I believe yours is the first "Double Bubble"!

The I Thought It Was M*A*S*H And Not Ann Frank....Could Someone Clarify That? Award goes to Beth and Brenda! (Actually, that is not really an award as much as it is a question from me. Anyone know for sure?)

The Ex-Patriot In The Swiss Timezone Early Advantage Award goes to Monica! With extra points for going from deist to Catholic catechumen in 0 - 60 days! 

And, finally, the You People Are Really Stupid Award goes to Jenny, for reminding us all that there is more than one way out of a terrorist hostage situation anyway!

Thanks for playing along, and I'll see you all for the next installment of Doctrinal Quiz Show!

Doctrinal Quiz Show! Moral Reasoning 101 (Or, What All Christians Used to Know)

Welcome once again to DQS!!! This Quiz Show is a bit different from the others. First, there are only two possible answers (but explanations may vary). Second, there is no holey soap prize!! That's right... even though a couple of sleuthy bloggers found a retail source for the exfoliating cleanser, I have decided that its plenitude would only serve to diminish the magic of receiving what used to be a rare and precious gift. However, the impressive and coveted Bubble Awards will still apply.  :)

My daughter is a sophomore in high school. A question came up in her Humane Letters class recently which caused quite a stir. Admittedly, it is an outlandish example that would never happen in real life, but it's a good academic exercise nevertheless. Give it a try:

Terrorists are holding you and hundreds of other innocent people hostage. You are told that if you press a button that will kill just one of the innocent hostages, you and all the others will be released unharmed. If you don't press the button, the terrorists will kill you and all of the hostages. Morally speaking, may you press the button? Why or why not?


*PS and off-topic: I am worn out from everything that's happened on the blogs lately. I know many of you are, too. I pushed ahead with a new post because there's so much that I want to cover (and, my daughter has been asking me for a while to get this particular post published). But if it takes me a day or two to get back with the answer, please understand that I am decompressing. And processing. :)