Zmirak on Morality of Atomic Weapons

 John Zmirak on the nuclear bombs in WW2:

I wish the discussions of "Oppenheimer" by Catholics focused on the moral question of atomic weapons, as used at Hiroshima. Yes, targeting civilians is appalling. But virtually ALL the wars before the 18th century were fought that way, with "laws of war" allowing for pillage and slaughter of cities successfully besieged--with no such clear condemnations from churchmen as we hear concerning Hiroshima. The 100 Years War, Henry V and all, was mostly Englishmen killing and robbing French peasants, to provoke the French kings into open combat (which they'd usually lose).

Just War theory of distinctions between combatants and civilians was not a myth, but a blurry line given the totalitarian conscription of societies in modern war. 

People vaporized by a nuke are just as dead as those burned alive in their cities during the 30 Years War. The firm distinction between civilians and combatants is a WONDERFUL thing. It's just a recent thing, which Catholic triumphalists throwing stones at the US over Hiroshima shouldn't pretend has been a clear and unambiguous Church teaching for 2000 years.

Furthermore, the distinction isn't that useful. Bombing arms factories for instance. Are those civilians or part of the military?

What about when a foreign government arms the whole population and tells it to fight? That's what Japan did.

The ideal moral solution would have been to signal a mass land invasion, make it clear WHERE it would happen, then nuke the whole Japanese army. Then blockade the islands and starve them into surrender.

Probably more civilians would have died, but it would have colored within the lines, if that's any consolation.

People vaporized by a nuke are just as dead as those burned alive in their cities during the 30 Years War. The firm distinction between civilians and combatants is a WONDERFUL thing. It's just a recent thing, which Catholic triumphalists throwing stones at the US over Hiroshima shouldn't pretend has been a clear and unambiguous Church teaching for 2000 years.

Furthermore, the distinction isn't that useful. Bombing arms factories for instance. Are those civilians or part of the military?

What about when a foreign government arms the whole population and tells it to fight? That's what Japan did.

The ideal moral solution would have been to signal a mass land invasion, make it clear WHERE it would happen, then nuke the whole Japanese army. Then blockade the islands and starve them into surrender.

Probably more civilians would have died, but it would have colored within the lines, if that's any consolation.

Is Mercy Harsh?

Pondered a homily heard on Sunday about the Lord not pulling the weeds when evil has planted them. The priest said that that’s a function of God being not just the God of the good, but also the God and creator and lover of those who are evil. God has a responsibility we don’t and he wants them to come to salvation. Unlike the fallen angels, humans can still be rescued as long as they are alive. He said we think of ourselves as waiting on God, but it is God who waits on us - between now and the Judgement - for our response. 

We think of mercy as a good thing and it is but it’s...complicated? The famous book about C.S. Lewis and his short-lived wife was called “A Severe Mercy”. Sounds oxymoronic.  Flannery O’Connor has a line in one of her stories that goes, “even the mercy of the Lord burns.” A commentator said that the “divine is at least as terrifying as the demonic.” 

O’Connor’s biographer followed the roots of her fervent Catholicism and:

“...traces the outlines of a life marked by illness and suffering, but ultimately defined by an irrepressible joy and even hilarity. In her stories, and in her life story, Flannery O’Connor extends a hand in the dark, warning and reassuring us of the terrible speed of mercy....The biography’s title, ‘The Terrible Speed of Mercy’, hints at the connection between O’Connor’s characters’ violent experiences and their readiness to accept God’s grace."

Peter, James and John: Three Types?

Interesting to hear that the three apostles so often singled out - Peter, James and John - have three specific characteristics or reasons to be singled out.  Peter was assigned as leader and first pope, John for being the mystic, and James for being the most courageous.  James died very early as a martyr and that combined with his being a “son of thunder” and wanting to call fire down upon unbelievers, he seems to have had more courage than many of the others including most especially Peter (who denied Christ and later after the Resurrection was worried about what Jews thought of him for eating with Gentiles). Perhaps these are the three types of Christian disciples: the “mystic” (i.e. the monk, Mary, etc..), the courageous (John the Baptist, James, the warriors...), and the leaders. 

Three types of people Plato identified: 


“The philosopher Plato suggested a trichotomy of three types of people: gold, silver, and bronze. These were fitted, by merit, for different roles in the republic: rulers or philosopher kings, the military, and the tradesmen, farmers, cobblers, builders, etc. at the bottom. These were in turn ruled by different parts of the body: the head; the heart, the symbol of bravery and not love in those days and the belly, separated from the heart by the waist. The three types were characterized by their different goals, personalities, and values: respectively wisdom and virtue, valor and bravery, and physical pleasure and sensory gratification."

What if instead of the head, heart, and belly the Christian view is head, heart and mind? Thus the head would be fitted as rulers and philosopher (doctrinal) kings (Peter), heart by courage (James), and the mind by John? 

Or, when Jesus said “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind”, the mind could be Peter (leader, doctrinal king). The heart could be courage (James) and the soul the mystic (John).

How and Why Things Go South

I share Amy Welborn's curiosity of how, when, and why things go bad. She's forgotten more history than I know so I hold her opinions in especial esteem. Here's a money quote for ya:  

One of the things I often think about is how do things go bad – especially institutions, and especially religious institutions. 

The fruit of all that thought is, among other points, the conviction that the key to a healthy religious institution is the awareness of just that point – things can go bad. And maybe even inevitably will. That human beings are weak, flawed and sinful and will corrupt what they touch, no matter how noble the initial intentions. This is the history of the world, of the Church, isn’t it?

I continually seek out explanations for the inexplicable but it likely just comes down to wisdom of "things can go bad". Even (especially?) when started with the best of intentions.

One relatively minor example (in the big scheme) is electronic voting machines. It began after the Bush-Gore '00 lawfare and machines were seen as an improvement that would take human intervention (i.e. identifying chads) out of the process. 

But that was a figment of everyone's collective imagination because machines are even more prone to human intervention since they have programmers (who are 100% human, I was one for decades). Even worse, these programs are hidden behind proprietary walls and coding complexity meaning they are essentially unauditable. (Again, I would know.) Worse, they centralize voting so that fraud can happen in, say, thirty states at once instead of at a county or state level. 

The creation of the CIA was in response to need for intelligence after WW2. 

Originally the US Attorney General was to give advice to the President when requested, such as on constitutionality of bills. From that humble beginning it morphed into the giant hydra-headed monster called the DoJ, from which sprang the bitter fruit of the FBI.

**

But the really fascinating period is 1953-1966. Fourteen years. From Bishop Sheen being a surprise TV star to the famous Time cover saying, "Is God Dead?". 

Let's oversimplify and make it three eras of perhaps impactful milestones:

1954-1959. The Seeds?: Obscenity "Howl" by Ginsberg...Movie "Rebel without a Cause"..."Lolita"...First Playboy centerfold... Jung on Time cover...Teilhard de Chardin becomes popular...First Elvis Presley hit..."Peyton Place" bestseller...Pope John XXIII becomes pope...US birth rate begins to fall. 

1960-1963. Bad Fruit: Birth control pill...Berlin Wall....CIA kills JFK...Madalyn O’Hair sues to remove Bibles in school... Ike exposed as having lied... Prayer banned from U.S. public schools...Betty Friedan’s “Feminine Mystique”.

1964-1966. Evil: Hollywood ban on pornography broken... First changes to Mass made...“Valley of Dolls” ...American Atheists founded...Supreme Court allows contraception...First Roman Polanski film “Repulsion”...Time magazine cover story "Is God Dead?”.. The Church of Satan formed in San Francisco.

Starting after that, violent crime in NYC went up 20% annually through '72...states decriminalize abortion in cases of rape, incest...gay movement begins in '69, Manson murders, no-fault divorce in CA. SCOTUS was almost a lagging indicator with the '73 Roe v Wade.

The DeSantis Dilemma

The talking point of pro-DeSantis boosters is Trump can’t win the general. They say 2024 is absolutely crucial and so the safe thing is vote for someone other than Trump. I’m thinking that’s an argument to vote *for* Trump ---- if the country is so fragile that it will crash if a Democrat is elected than we surely need a bulldozer (Trump). 

René Girard disciple Luke Burgis recently posted this on Twitter: 

"There's a way of going through life where, for many years, maybe even decades, you can feel as if you're just barely keeping your head above water. Paradoxically, the solution is not to keep struggling but to let yourself drown. The struggle was the wrong one to begin with.”

Not sure I agree, but interesting take.

Maybe our country needs to drown.

**

The thinking of DeSantis backers is that “it’s better for one man to be imprisoned [Trump] than for the nation to perish”. I think DeSantis should burn the boats behind him (ie the establishment) and promise to pardon Trump. 

At any rate, DeSantis has to be a fighter not just on cultural front - which is the responsibility of we the people - and fight the war we are powerless over, namely the justice system and DOJ and FBI.  Consumers can punish Disney or Bud Light, but we can’t punish the FBI. That’s where DeSantis needs to step up. But he can't, because then the establishment would leave him and he'd be a man without a country.