Pints With Aquinas - 9.5: Was the bombing of Hiroshima immoral?

Episode Date: May 30, 2016

Follow Fr. Chris' podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/fides-et-ratio/id912044662?mt=2 SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode, well, 9.5, I guess you could say. I'm Matt Fradd. This is an odd episode. It doesn't fall within our weekly schedule, but it's something that I thought I'd like to address today. Tomorrow's podcast will be releasing as usual, but I wanted to address the issue of the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. address the issue of the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Recently, President Obama was in Japan, and though he didn't officially apologize, he did show remorse for the innocent lives that were killed. On my Facebook wall, I said that I thought that this was a good thing, and that created quite a firestorm. Lots of people were very upset. Well, just last week, you'll remember, I addressed the issue of moral acts and how we know whether an act is moral or immoral. That's episode 9. If you haven't listened to that, be sure that you do.

But my friend, Father Chris Pachashko, who you'll actually be listening tomorrow in the 10th episode of Pines with Aquinas, we sit down and talk about why he loves St. Thomas and why you should too. But he recently did a podcast on these bombings and on why they are immoral and on why Catholics should agree with that, that they're immoral. Now, if you're someone who doesn't think that these bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were immoral, maybe you're tempted to react emotionally to this podcast, as many people did to my Facebook post. But I want to just encourage you not to do that. Instead, maybe say a prayer and then listen to what Father Pachashko has to say. You might still disagree vehemently with him and me, and I would say the Catholic Church and St. Thomas Aquinas at the end of this podcast, but I just want to encourage you to have an open mind to listen to it. I also am aware that this is Memorial Day weekend, and I want to reassure everyone that that is in no way meant to be a slight against the brave men and women here in America that have put their lives at risk abroad, who have fought for our country.

To them, I would say, like I think most Americans would and should say, thank you for your service. So the show's called Pints with Aquinas. But, you know, if you think it's necessary, maybe today it can be a whiskey with Aquinas. But I hope you'll enjoy the show and please let us know what you think. Maybe you can shoot me a tweet over Twitter and be sure to follow Father Chris's podcast. It's called Fetus et Ratio, which is Latin for faith and reason. That's it for me. And I will see you tomorrow, 6 a.m. Eastern time. I'll be speaking to Father Chris, not about this sort of stuff, but just about St. Thomas Aquinas and why he is someone

that all Catholics should know more about. God bless you. Welcome, friends. Using your heart Welcome friends, this is Fr. Chris Petraschko and I'd like to offer a reflection on the usage of nuclear weapons in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This was recently developed and published an article by Catholic Answers on my own Facebook and the comments exploded. And from both Christians and Catholic Christians and non-Christians

began to employ their own opinions. And I would say that you could summarize the positions in three different camps, and so three different categories. Of course, everyone's own position might not perfectly fit into these, but bear with me for a moment. This is just an attempt to summarize the positions. So the first position, generally espoused by one of my Facebook friends who's not Catholic, believes that the Catholic Church's teaching on just war theory is nothing more than a utilitarian argument

that is antithetical to the very message of Christ. So this is what we might call pacifism. And basically the view is that Christ taught us to turn the cheek and that those who live by the sword die by the sword. Of course, the problem with that is sometimes the aggressor is attacking someone who isn't ourselves. And so we can't turn our cheek on their behalf. For example, if all the Jews were being gathered together and to be burnt alive and we were to say, well, we must turn the cheek. We would be doing nothing.

We'd be doing nothing to stop it and prevent it from happening when we had the obligation to do so. And so this, of course, is pacifism, and the weakness within it is very obvious, especially when it comes to standing idly by while nations bully others into death and into death camps. Now, I'm going to start with the third position before I get to the middle position. The third position was espoused by many Catholics, but also some non-Catholics. One particular non-Catholic who made a comment has to be, of course, somewhat edited as I offer it in this blog, in this podcast, that is. And he basically said, oh, I'm so glad I'm not Catholic because I can be a man. In other words, what he's saying is,

I can be a man and make real decisions and not be soft and say, we can't kill innocent people innocent people in order to save lives. Okay, so that's his position. And he is viewing, of course, being a man, being a real man, as being one who can take it upon himself to kill innocent children and women, because that's a tough decision to make, and only a man can make that. Okay, and only a man can make that. Okay. Now, with other people who weren't so visceral in their response, they sadly were trying to attempt to convey something very important to them. It could be as a result of having family who died from the war. It could be a result of being a military person fighting in wars, having to have already made perhaps some of those very difficult decisions and struggling with that in our conscience. So what does the Catholic Church actually teach?

And this is the middle position that I would say was very well represented by many Catholics on this forum. So what does the Catholic Church teach? Well, thank goodness we have a Catechism of the Catholic Church. So for all the Catholics who would like to look at authority, let me quote for you Pacham and Terris by Pope John XXIII, and then after that I would like to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So in paragraph 1112, Pope John XXIII says,

Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man's dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stockpiles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all around and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Okay, so we know that Pope John the 23rd was dealing with a Cold War and the armaments race, and he very vividly condemns the usage of nuclear weapons in the future. So some may say, well, he didn't say that it was wrong in that particular paragraph to have bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So let's go to the Catechism. Paragraph 2312 says, the church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. What a wonderful quote. And so what does that mean? It means simply that

just because you're fighting a war, you can't say that everything goes. Okay, so even a war has to be looked at and discerned with moral principles and laws. Okay. So continue on in that paragraph. It says, the mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes illicit between the warring parties. Very good. Okay. So nothing, just because you can kill people in a war, morally speaking,

that it's morally justified to kill certain people, does not mean you can do it in any way that you would like. Now, paragraph 2314 says the following. 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. And that was, of course, quoted from, I believe, Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 80. In any case, I'll have to look up that quote to be 100% sure. The reference is GS, paragraph 80. Okay, so following and finishing that paragraph, it says,

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. unequivocally states that it is wrong to destroy whole cities or vast areas of their inhabitants, and that this is a crime against God and man which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. That's pretty strong language, and it's pretty clear. So, as Catholics, we know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents magisterial authority, and so, if you're having a very difficult time with this, like anything, as a good spiritual director, what I would recommend to you is to take it to prayer. Take it to prayer before you emotionally flip out because this does not fit

into your conscience and your attitude and your politics, especially in the United States or in Canada. Take it to prayer. Don't respond emotionally. Okay, what would I say next? Well, I'd like to offer a little bit of philosophy that can help you understand why the church believes that the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities and vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. Why is it that the church teaches this? Well, St. Thomas Aquinas offers us a great deal of reflection on what morality is, and his principles have been assumed into the Catholic Church.

We see that all over the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He says that there are three things that we have to consider whenever committing a moral act. First is the intention. And so what's the goal in mind? Why is the person doing this? Okay. The second, of course, is the circumstance, so the intention. And so what's the goal in mind? Why is the person doing this? Okay. The second, of course, is the circumstance. So the context, what's going on? You know, what's, what place is taking place? And what's, what's the time? Where are they? That kind of thing. Everything that

surrounds what's about to take place. And the third is the means, or the act, or the object. And that's where the particular decision gets its species from, its definition from. Okay, so all three of these have to be in harmony in order for the whole moral act to be considered good. That's St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching. So, object, intention, and circumstance. The object of the act, what you're doing, the means to accomplish your intention, the intention, the goal that you have in mind, what you're trying to accomplish, and the circumstance, the where and when. Okay, so let me give you a couple examples that might help you understand why all three of them have to be in harmony. First of all, let's say that I would like to build health within my body.

And so, I decide to skip rope. Skipping rope is the act or the object. My intention is the health of the body. But what if I'm doing it during Mass on the altar? Hope is the act or the object. My intention is the health of the body. But what if I'm doing it during Mass on the altar? That's a pretty terrible place to do it, right? So we would say there's a time and a place, Father Chris. And it's certainly not the time and not the place.

That would be a sacrilege. All right, so we know that circumstances are important. They're part of the moral act. All right, so what's the second thing that we have to consider? All right, let me give you another analogy. Let's say I would like to feed the poor, and I need money to do that. And so what I plan to do is get some money, go to the food bank, and donate it to them. That's the intention and the circumstance. But the way I go about doing it is I rob a bunch of rich people. I break into their houses, steal their TVs and sell them online on Kijiji. Okay, of course that's ridiculous. Don't do that.

So stealing, even though it gets the job done, even though it feeds the poor, even though it accomplishes something amazing, it's still wrong. I still shouldn't have done it that way. Alright. So, that is what we would call utilitarianism. Now, the last example. Let's say I am feeding the poor, and I'm using my own money. So, I haven't stolen so I do a good act

and I feed the poor and I do it in a homeless shelter that's a great place to do it but what if I'm doing it so that everyone thinks that I'm holy that I'm a saint and I'm doing it just so that everyone likes me

and everyone thinks that I'm a saint. I'm doing it just so that everyone likes me and everyone thinks that I'm just all that. Well, of course, that's immoral as well, because I'm being a Pharisee. I am being a person who only cares about what's on the outside, the perceptions of others, but I don't actually love the poor. I'm using them for my own ego. That's kind of insulting to them. They deserve love, real love, not fake false love, which they can probably see right through. All right, so those are three examples. Now, the one in which was being used by many Catholics and Father Wilson Miscambell, who is a professor of history at Notre Dame University, which is the video that was going around on, I believe

it's PragerU, and it was published August 5th, 2015 on Facebook. This particular video, he argues for the logic and reason why it was so necessary to drop the nuclear weapon, nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Based on that informed decision to save lives and to end the war, it actually did accomplish that. I'm not going to argue with that point. That's not what's up for debate. Debate isn't whether or not it was a smart choice in terms of reducing to people to numbers. Perhaps he's the historian, he's the expert with the statistics. Perhaps it was.

But even if it was, that does not change whether or not it was wrong to do. Just because you've accomplished a good end does not mean you've done it in the right way. And that's what people have to have some time of meditation to reflect and think on this question deeply I'd like to give you an analogy from a movie that I had seen a couple of years ago it was a Batman movie and the Joker was the villain he was the diabolical you know manifestation of Satan just seeking to bring disorder everywhere.

What did he do? Well, he had a boat of prisoners on one boat. And a boat of innocent civilians on another. And he rigged both of them up with bombs. And each boat had the remote to blow up the other boat. And each boat had the remote to blow up the other boat. So each boat had the power to save themselves by blowing up the other boat first. The jokers gave them this kind of theoretical task,

which was that if you don't blow up each other, if no one blows anyone up, then I'll blow up both of the boats and everyone will die. Well, what a difficult decision to make. But the movie itself actually represented Catholic philosophy in the decision that was made. What was the decision that was made? Neither the boat with the criminals nor the boat with the civilians blew each other up. In other words, something profound was stated that each boat was willing to die for the other one. As Jesus would say, there's no greater love than to lay down

your life for a friend. Particular scene, of course, that humbles us was that the guard was considering on the boat with all the prisoners to blow up the innocent civilians. He was sweating. He didn't want to die. And so the prisoner took it and he said, give that to me. Give me that remote and I'll do what you can't yourself do. Of course, the guard thought that he was going to blow up the other boat because his prejudice said that a criminal, of course, will do nothing but murder other people to save his own life. But what that criminal did was he threw the remote into the water to ensure that such a decision would never be made by anyone

there. Now, of course, we have the great Batman come in and save the day, and so that none of them have to die, and we don't really get to reflect on the sacrifice that both of them made. We feel this great relief. Goodness, they didn't die. But at the same time, if your heart is cold, you wouldn't be inspired by the decision that both the boat with the civilians and the boat with the criminals made. They both were willing to die for each other. Let's take this kind of reflection from a movie and let's apply it to another philosophical dilemma. One that we received in Thomistic Philosophy in university was called The Fat Man in the Cave. It's not a very complimentary title for the poor fat man. Now, what happens was there were 10 people walking into a cave and the fat man was the last one and as he walked he caused all sorts of rocks to fall on him right at the mouth of the cave and he was knocked unconscious but still alive

and his head was on the inside of the cave but his feet were on the outside now a group of philosophers came in and they turned on the taps and poured water into the cave. So they were all going to drown and die and there wasn't enough time to wait around for help or to dig themselves out. And so they only had one possible solution. They had one stick of dynamite and a book of matches. and a book of matches. And they could place that stick of dynamite into the cave wall right beside the fat man, blow him up, and save everybody's life except for the fat man. And so the question to the class was, what do you do? Do you allow all 10 people, including the fat man, to die, or do you kill the fat man and save the nine? Of course,

many would begin to think and reflect and dialogue on this, and they would say, but the fat man's going to die anyway. What does his life matter? Well, that's a good question. Aren't we all going to die anyways? What really matters in this life, brothers and and sisters does it matter that we live or does it matter that we've loved what does jesus teach away teach us about a seed that doesn't die and a seed that does die that's a good question to ask when we're examining this question. Now, in the pragmatism of our world today, we don't see the value of love. We see the value of efficiency and of survival. That's an instinct ingrained within us.

It's pretty natural, but it's not the most important instinct that should be in there. So, of course, the answer was that you can't blow up the fat man. You can't blow him up. Now, this, of course, was used as an analogy to discuss ectopic pregnancies, where an embryo is lodged into a fallopian tube. And the Church does teach that you can remove the fallopian tube, but what you can't do is open up the fallopian tube and suck out that person with a vacuum and dismembering

them piece by piece. And so the church can save the woman, but it can't act directly on the fetus that's lodged in the fallopian tube. So it's a bit of a different situation, but you get the parallel. The point of the fat man in the cave is to reveal to us that Catholic moral teaching teaches us that sometimes everybody has to die. Sometimes everybody has to die. Now, for those who look at morality as some sort of lofty high ground that we like to place ourselves on, as one of the comments was, well, I suppose it could be. I suppose some people could approach it from that angle, and that would be problematic. Pope Benedict calls that moralism. He condemns it. But let's dive a bit deeper into the spiritual implications of what we're doing here by allowing

everyone to die, by allowing more people to die, perhaps. What we're doing is we're saying that the lives of the innocent are worth dying for, not killing. That's what we're saying. It's simple as that. We're saying that we are not going to be our enemy to kill and exploit the deaths of innocent people in order to bring about some sort of worldly peace. How can you have worldly peace by intentionally obliterating women and children to say it will save some lives? What you've done in that situation,

spiritually, is you have compartmentalized the very value of each child within the womb of its mother all the children playing in the parks and going to school and all the men working for their families you have compartmentalized that and said it doesn't matter it's collateral damage I don't care if Obama agrees with this position, and I don't care if Trudeau agrees with this position. They're both wrong about a million things.

What I care about is whether or not our position is both reasonable and human. Now, does a real man kill innocent children? Does he seek to exploit the deaths of others so that we can survive as a nation? What kind of foundation to a nation do you have when you've had to murder innocent people in order to survive? That's a good question to ask ourselves. Why am I alive today? Because I murdered innocent people? Or because I stood up

for what was right and defended even the innocent living in an enemy's country? What kind of person do you want to be? That's what the Catholic Church wants us to ask. It doesn't want us to downplay or minimize the importance of any human life in statistics. It wants us to actually love one another. Okay? And so in reflecting on this particular issue, I have to be very firm in repeating what the Catechism of the Church said, which is in my own words,

it merits firm and unequivocal condemnation, which I hope is what I've given here. I condemn the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the sake of those innocent human beings that we killed and we continue to justify in our logic to this day, while yet at the same time proclaiming ourselves to be pro-life. You have to be kidding me. Change your view on this. Change it. It's not about politics. It's about what is a crime against God and man. Paragraph 2314 in the Catechism. A crime against God and man, paragraph 2314 in the Catechism, a crime against

God and man. That means it means not to be a man to do that type of a thing. It takes more courage to be willing to go to Japan and to die in order to respect the innocent lives that live in Japan. That's what it means. Not to cower behind a country dropping a bomb on them. Brothers and sisters, this is an important issue and you can tell I'm passionate about it. how I'm passionate about it. It's not just philosophy. It's not just morality. It's human people with lives, with histories, with a purpose created in the image and likeness of God. I am not denying the fact that as Catholics, we have to at times kill in a war. You will never find me disagreeing with that. But what I unequivocally condemn with the church is an indiscriminate destruction of innocent human life.

When you're fighting against soldiers and soldiers, those soldiers have taken their position, and you have a right to kill if it's a just cause, a just war. But you don't have any, as the Catechism says, any means to do whatever you want. Just because war is regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties. Paragraph 2312. Let's apply this logic not only to the past, but to the future. Let's apply it not just to war, but to our relationships with one another, with children within the womb, one another, with children within the womb, with the elderly, with whatever, whenever life is threatened, may we never, ever, ever even can remotely consider the destruction of one innocent

life because every innocent life is worth dying for, not killing. God bless you. And I would give my whole life to carry you, to carry you, to carry you, to carry you, to carry you. To carry you.