tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post396657955578940621..comments2024-03-25T06:39:42.081-04:00Comments on Bonfire of the Vanities: Can we reclaim the name 'Holy Cross' from Holy Cross College?Fr Martin Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-21904337932742526012017-05-11T12:35:37.408-04:002017-05-11T12:35:37.408-04:00Rifles, grenades, and artillery fire, which are no...<i>Rifles, grenades, and artillery fire, which are not condemned...</i><br /><br />Because rifles, grenades and artillery fire can be <i>targeted</i> to combatants; indeed, the army as a whole can <i>target</i> it's destructive actions on combatants. And, if this is not the case, then the condemnations cited apply to these as well. Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-65195375651151485062017-05-10T17:50:31.025-04:002017-05-10T17:50:31.025-04:00"I cited, for example, what the Magisterium s..."I cited, for example, what the Magisterium said about the use of atomic bombs in Japan. And I provided evidence that the British deliberately targeted civilians; Churchill himself called it 'terror bombing'."<br /><br />I have demonstrated how this prudential judgement is flawed. Rifles, grenades, and artillery fire, which are not condemned, will inflict the same degree of destruction over enough time. As negotiations cannot be depended upon to end the carnage, we cannot properly condemn nuclear weapons if we do not condemn the use of an army.<br /><br />I have made my mind quite clear. Moral law does exist; you have not proven that the Allies broke it. Some efforts, such as terror bombing, are certainly questionable, but do not, to my view, constitute violations. Where there's no evidence of intent to inflict wanton violence, I can't agree that these were immoral.<br /><br />I do wish you a good week.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-56376302793117564252017-05-10T17:22:14.610-04:002017-05-10T17:22:14.610-04:00No, I'm criticizing the fact that, though you ...<i>No, I'm criticizing the fact that, though you would seem to chastise leaders per Catholic doctrine, you cannot demonstrate how Allied actions violated Catholic doctrine.</i><br /><br />Yes, I have. I cited, for example, what the Magisterium said about the use of atomic bombs in Japan. And I provided evidence that the British deliberately targeted civilians; Churchill himself called it "terror bombing."<br /><br /><i>Not only that, but you cannot demonstrate that said leaders had cause to consider actions from a Catholic perspective.</i><br /><br />And for the second time, at least, I ask you, so what? Just because you wish it? <br /><br /><i>If we might agree that we can't use an anything goes approach, we cannot agree that the Allies took such an approach.</i><br /><br />Please make up your mind. Either your position is, yes, the moral law does actually apply to war, but allegations of gravely immoral actions by the Allies are false. Or, your position is, "war is pure bloody hell," these things happen, accept it. How about you decide just <i>which</i> is your position, and stick to it?22<br /><br /><i>I do find it interesting, this ruckus about war strategy, yet we never hear the same fuss over Allied soldiers lustful intentions, looting, or other concerns.</i><br /><br />Seriously? <i>Now</i> you're complaining that I didn't go on to list yet <i>more</i> moral lapses in World War II? When did I promise a comprehensive listing of all serious moral lapses in World War II? I didn't. Your complaints are getting ridiculous.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-23020551905968589252017-05-10T17:11:02.999-04:002017-05-10T17:11:02.999-04:00Curious:
If terror (or nuclear) bombing is unaccep...Curious:<br />If terror (or nuclear) bombing is unacceptable, would you prefer we had chosen exclusively explicit military targets, such as airfields and army posts? Then a ground war?<br />Keep in mind, doing so would almost certainly have wound up targeting the same people, the same cities, and wreaking the same degree of destruction, if not more so. Such would have happened because we would have needed to strike--or loot--many industrial facilities, if only to cut them out of the fight. Casualties on both sides quite likely would have been far worse than what happened.<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-59415501299311121072017-05-10T16:45:52.374-04:002017-05-10T16:45:52.374-04:00"So, to be clear, you are giving your persona..."So, to be clear, you are giving your personal endorsement to an anything-goes-in-war approach?"<br /><br />No, I'm criticizing the fact that, though you would seem to chastise leaders per Catholic doctrine, you cannot demonstrate how Allied actions violated Catholic doctrine. I know many believed otherwise (and do now). I and others do not. Not only that, but you cannot demonstrate that said leaders had cause to consider actions from a Catholic perspective. <br />If we might agree that we can't use an anything goes approach, we cannot agree that the Allies took such an approach. Again, if I had evidence of seeking wanton destruction, simply for the sake of blasting things to oblivion, I might agree. I do not.<br /><br />I do find it interesting, this ruckus about war strategy, yet we never hear the same fuss over Allied soldiers lustful intentions, looting, or other concerns.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-3948513396851795712017-05-10T16:07:04.317-04:002017-05-10T16:07:04.317-04:00"In other words, why are you griping to me ab...<i>"In other words, why are you griping to me about this?"<br /><br />I'm griping to you about this because...you started it.</i><br /><br />Oh, bosh. I wrote a post delving into history, and made a connection with recent history. I didn't write a post about the history of how Catholic doctrine influenced war-making, because I didn't. Perfectly interesting topic, but not what I chose to write about. <br /><br /><i>War is pure, bloody hell, whatever the Rules of Engagement may be. If you don't like those rules much, neither does anyone else.</i><br /><br />So, to be clear, you are giving your personal endorsement to an anything-goes-in-war approach? <br /><br />It's not a question of "principles" -- it's a question of right or wrong. Do you actually believe there is such a thing as good and evil?<br /><br />Or is your point that human nature is fallen? I think I knew that. I think everyone knows that. That fact is not a reason to say, oh well, we can't really do anything to restrain evil, so why bother?<br /><br />Why limit this approach to war? What about law enforcement, which also involves socially sanctioned use of violence? For that matter, this sounds a lot like the way people approach questions of sexual morality, abortion, and other life-and-death issues. People are going to do bad stuff, whaddyagonnado? Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-43567745695943576972017-05-10T15:51:16.135-04:002017-05-10T15:51:16.135-04:00Or to put it more succinctly: When you choose to f...Or to put it more succinctly: When you choose to fight a war, you agree to allow for human dignity to be severely compromised for the duration of the fighting. Quibbling that this or that strategy violates principles strikes me as complaining that someone didn't close the barn door some 3 hours after the horse ran out.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-86086177394958736972017-05-10T15:48:01.405-04:002017-05-10T15:48:01.405-04:00"In other words, why are you griping to me ab..."In other words, why are you griping to me about this?"<br /><br />I'm griping to you about this because...you started it.<br />Call it a pet peeve of mine if you like, but I have little patience for proclaiming that a war may be fought, ...but not THAT way. War is pure, bloody hell, whatever the Rules of Engagement may be. If you don't like those rules much, neither does anyone else.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-13250957033878167612017-05-10T14:40:58.924-04:002017-05-10T14:40:58.924-04:00So, I see no evidence that leaders then or now had...<i>So, I see no evidence that leaders then or now had cause to be worried about Catholic doctrine. No evidence suggests that Just War theory had an impact then or will impact strategy or target selection now.</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, when did it become my responsibility to do extensive research into "evidence that leaders then or now had cause to be worried about Catholic doctrine," and provide that to you? Are you offering me a commission? That would be an interesting research project, but it would take a bit of time. I'm sure I could do it, but there might be others who could do a better and quicker job.<br /><br />In other words, why are you griping to me about this? <br /><br /><i>I'm having a horrid time understanding why anyone will give a rat's butt about what Catholic doctrine says about moral decision-making. ...Or why we feel compelled to engage in hand-wringing over decisions made almost 70 years ago.</i><br /><br />I'm sorry you're having a "horrid time." What a very pleasant life you must lead, if spending time reading my blog and posting comments here merits such a dire description. I can certainly introduce you to people who really do have a horrid time of it, if you like.<br /><br />But beyond that, I find baffling your apparent suggestion that once things are a certain number of years in the past, there is no point in evaluating their meaning and significance, particularly from a moral point of view. A quote comes to mind, something about those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-66949104382874360572017-05-10T13:23:16.408-04:002017-05-10T13:23:16.408-04:00"It still comes back to holding leaders, and ..."It still comes back to holding leaders, and ourselves, to moral decision-making."<br /><br />I see.<br />So, I see no evidence that leaders then or now had cause to be worried about Catholic doctrine. No evidence suggests that Just War theory had an impact then or will impact strategy or target selection now. Not only that, but the Church's general evangelizing effort has long been tepid enough as to be summarily ignored.<br /><br />I'm having a horrid time understanding why anyone will give a rat's butt about what Catholic doctrine says about moral decision-making.<br />...Or why we feel compelled to engage in hand-wringing over decisions made almost 70 years ago.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-65724295866800071482017-05-10T13:16:17.691-04:002017-05-10T13:16:17.691-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-80001120217311590362017-05-10T11:58:32.734-04:002017-05-10T11:58:32.734-04:00John:
It still comes back to holding leaders, and...John:<br /><br />It still comes back to holding leaders, and ourselves, to moral decision-making. <br /><br />And as far as Churchill: that's an interesting question, but my answer on the spot is that the actions he (and others) on the Allied side engaged in, that were immoral, don't change the fact that the Allies were defending themselves from aggression, and therefore, were morally entitled to repel that aggression.<br /><br />But that does raise the question of whether it was necessary to seek "unconditional" surrender, as that may have played a decisive role in whether Japan would surrender prior to the use of atomic weapons. I have seen that argument made, but I haven't taken sides on it.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-75592949515930237142017-05-10T11:43:42.645-04:002017-05-10T11:43:42.645-04:00Incidentally...,
In an earlier comment, you had no...Incidentally...,<br />In an earlier comment, you had noted that one may fight a defensive fight to ward off an aggressor, but acting as the aggressor could not be justified.<br />Would you say that, by agreeing to commit terror bombings, intentionally targeting civilians, that Churchill et al ceased being defensive combatants, but became aggressors instead?<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-50613050529672664862017-05-10T11:19:56.368-04:002017-05-10T11:19:56.368-04:00So basically, these arguments boil down to a compl...So basically, these arguments boil down to a complaint that civilians have been targeted specifically, which goes beyond the pale.<br />We would do well to remember that...if the war drags on long enough, some of those civilians...will no longer be civilians.<br />When we agree to fight a war, we assume a risk to everyone, whether we believe we do or not. The only way to be assured of avoiding such hazards is...don't fight in the first place.<br />Only, that doesn't work either because if someone else is fighting, we may still suffer anyway.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-20343680813158330142017-05-10T07:32:59.038-04:002017-05-10T07:32:59.038-04:00Nor can I agree that a nuclear bomb was/is indiscr...<i>Nor can I agree that a nuclear bomb was/is indiscriminate.</i><br /><br />The Magisterium doesn't wait upon your agreement.<br /><br /><i>As for terror bombing, I know well what they did and why. If I cannot eagerly approve of such a means, neither can I justly fault them. I notice that, even in this, they did not conduct raids for vindictive reasons. ...Even you declare they did so to provoke the enemy to surrender.</i><br /><br />It wasn't just <i>I</i> who called them "terror bombings," committed for vindictive reasons. Churchill admitted it was about terror -- his word -- when he proposed a re-evaluation of the bombing in February 1945. As to whether it was intended to be "vindictive"? Well, what difference does a word make? If you set out, very deliberately (which the Allies did) to slaughter civilians, is it somehow less repugnant if you do so kind-heartedly? <br /><br />And, yes, they did set out to target civilians very deliberately. Allied records reveal this. RAF Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris said this:<br /><br /><i>the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany.<br /><br />... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.</i>Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-32088001003791672762017-05-10T02:34:17.938-04:002017-05-10T02:34:17.938-04:00Well, I think you err, but that's not unusual....Well, I think you err, but that's not unusual.<br /><br />I'm well acquainted with the CCC. I've had need. Remember though, if Catholic teachings have been around since Creation, so too have numerous other ideas. I have seen no evidence that Catholics ever caused the War Department to care about Church teaching. When leaders have not agreed to abide by Catholic teaching, we can't try insisting that they erred according to our norms.<br /><br />Notably, even today, Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) posits many Just War ideas, but the latter theory does not dictate the former Law. Catholics have still not induced the DoD to adopt Catholic principles. Military commanders do have strict requirements for choosing targets. They must be militarily significant--which can include industrial facilities--to justify decisions to attack. Even so, such does not mean that they intend to follow Catholic doctrine.<br /><br />Then we have "indiscriminate" bombing. I can only assume this refers to the strategic bombing of various industrial facilities. These were quite discriminate! They sought to reduce the enemy's ability to fight. If he can't drive, fly, or float, he may surrender. I think it tragic that civilians died, but even St Thomas gives us argument to allow this. By seeking a good, we may tolerate...collateral damage. We don't--and didn't--wish to kill needlessly. Such must be balanced by recognizing the likely greater death toll on our side from failing to strike a manufacturing facility.<br />Had we conducted raids merely for hatred or revenge--such as payback for the Blitz--I might agree to condemn it. We didn't.<br /><br />As for terror bombing, I know well what they did and why. If I cannot eagerly approve of such a means, neither can I justly fault them. I notice that, even in this, they did not conduct raids for vindictive reasons. ...Even you declare they did so to provoke the enemy to surrender. Thus, I cannot agree that bombing Dresden constituted a criminal act. The rail facility was a legitimate target, and was bombed along with all the rest.<br /><br />Nor can I agree that a nuclear bomb was/is indiscriminate. It's true this weapon will kill and destroy over a large area. It's also true that rifles, grenades, and artillery will have the same effect. Proclaiming the death of 300,000 in three minutes despicable raises the troublesome question of why 300,000 deaths in three months is not. We don't like dealing with a cold calculus that way, but fighting war competently requires precisely that. Then too, consider Europe and Vietnam after war, no nukes in sight. We can't justly condemn the bomb without also condemning a standing army's existence.<br /><br />"So I'm not sure what more you want from me?"<br />You've provided what I sought well enough. I think your points are well enough intended, but not thought out thoroughly. Simply put, these critiques reflect an academician's effort to make sense of war, not an understanding of how war actually happens.<br /><br /><br />PS. Fussing over Allied reactions to the Jewish plight...does not well reflect history. We could argue that Kristallnacht and other events should given warning. We need to realize that nobody expected horror on this scale; even the Nazis didn't develop the Final Solution until 1941. Nobody can honestly have anticipated the degree of butchery the Nazis developed.<br /><br />As I mentioned way back at the beginning, I have read too many critiques that fail to admit to the degree of evil that ultimately would be unleashed during World War II. We too easily fall prey to 20/20 hindsight.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-34500378686052909612017-05-09T17:03:00.249-04:002017-05-09T17:03:00.249-04:00Now, is your point that you are disputing there we...Now, is your point that you are disputing there were serious actions or omissions by the Allies during the Second World War?<br /><br />If so, I will reiterate:<br /><br />- Terror bombing, including the bombing of Dresden. May I suggest you google "Winston Churchill terror bombing." What you will find was a decisive shift in policy by the Allies, the British in particular, from trying to avoid targeting civilian populations, to targeting them for the purpose of terrorizing them and inducing surrender.<br /><br />- The use of atomic weapons in Japan. There is no disputing it happened, and that it was indiscriminate.<br /><br />Now, in thinking about the matter a bit more, if I could do it over, I might have left off the mention of the Holocaust. I think it's true to say that Allies, in the lead-up to WWII, could easily have done more to assist the Jews and others being targeted; but in the course of the war itself, I'm not in a position to say the same. <br /><br />So I'm not sure what more you want from me?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-46793608067438033872017-05-09T16:49:57.541-04:002017-05-09T16:49:57.541-04:00Now, to return to your question, which I delayed a...Now, to return to your question, which I delayed answering. I hope this recent iteration will do:<br /><br /><i>Put simply, I have been challenging you with a difficult question since my first comment, which you have not yet answered: Why were these particular actions of World War II evil? More helpfully, why were these evil, but fighting the war in general was not?</i><br /><br />I may have already answered, but I want to be sure. Very simply, there is a clear distinction, morally, between acts of war involving repelling aggression, and those that are directed to non-combatants, or fail to make this distinction. It's hard for me to understand why this needs to be explained. A soldier who shoots back at an enemy soldier is committing a very different act, morally, from the soldier who shoots non-combatants. Certainly there are times when the distinction isn't easily made, but that is not always true. And in the case of bombing an entire city, no effort is being made.<br /><br />It is legitimate to defend oneself against aggression, but that doesn't mean anything goes.<br /><br />Do I really need to explain this further? <br /><br />Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-37091845333370114952017-05-09T16:39:40.982-04:002017-05-09T16:39:40.982-04:00In any case, here's what the Church says:
The...In any case, here's what the Church says:<br /><br /><i>The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties</i>" (CCC 2312).<br /><br />And:<br /><br /><i>Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide. <br /><br />“<b>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</b>.” 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.</i><br /><br />The phrase I bolded, above, states the matter succinctly; it is a quote from <i>Gaudium et Spes,</i> one of the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council.<br /><br />So this is what was behind my assertion that certain actions carried out by the Allies were wrong, while the overall effort I do not deem to be wrong.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-40743169908662231552017-05-09T16:38:01.871-04:002017-05-09T16:38:01.871-04:00John:
Thanks, I appreciate your response. Let'...John:<br /><br />Thanks, I appreciate your response. Let's work through this. And in another post I'll return to the question you asked.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified...</i><br /><br />I responded:<br /><br /><i>Yes, and when did I make that argument? Please quote me. Hint: I never did; that's why I suggest you try again.</i><br /><br />And you said you deem my statement, as follows, as my making this argument:<br /><br /><i>There were moral failures by the Allies in World War II, some pretty significant* -- but acknowledging this fact does not call into question the legitimacy of the Allies' overall effort;...</i><br /><br />Well, except that is <i>not</i> saying what you claim it says. To say that there were moral failures in the course of prosecuting the war is not saying I believe that "fighting a war cannot be justified." That's like saying that if a police officer, even once, misuses his authority, then the existence of police forces cannot be justified. The fallacy of that should be obvious, but apparently not.<br /><br />Whether a war is morally justified depends on the reason <i>why</i> it is fought, and <i>how.</i> This is what the Church's longstanding "Just War" teaching is about. I would suggest reviewing the <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church,</i> beginning at paragraph 2263, and then again, at paragraph 2307; indeed, I would suggest reading everything under the Fifth Commandment.<br /><br /><i>In other words, you first bash Allied leaders for some of their decisions, then proclaim that most everything else they did was acceptable. I see no distinctions being made for why the overall war was acceptable, yet particular actions of fighting the war were not.</i><br /><br />Well, this is not an obscure subject, but it's not true I didn't give any explanation of what I was talking about. As I said in the original post were "indiscriminate bombing, the destruction of Dresden, the use of atomic bombs in Japan, and the failure to do more to assist the Jews and others who were being systematically exterminated." The "indiscriminate" modifying "bombing" ought to be clear enough: it is immoral to make no distinction between the guilty and the innocent, and in war, the application of this has been that reasonable efforts should be made to distinguish -- i.e., <i>discriminate</i> -- between combatants and non-combatants.<br /><br />Since you were or are in the military, please confirm for me and other readers here: is this, in fact, a feature of decision-making in war? Such was my understanding, but you are welcome to contradict me on this. (Cont...)Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-9978876653943912872017-05-09T13:23:04.300-04:002017-05-09T13:23:04.300-04:00So you think I can't be bothered to answer a s...So you think I can't be bothered to answer a simple question?<br />All right. Here we go.<br /><br />I said:<br />"If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified..."<br /><br />Amongst others, you responded:<br />"Yes, and when did I make that argument? Please quote me. Hint: I never did; that's why I suggest you try again."<br /><br />I felt you had already answered that question yourself. I did not deem I had a need to repeat your own premise. From the article:<br /><br />"There were moral failures by the Allies in World War II, some pretty significant* -- but acknowledging this fact does not call into question the legitimacy of the Allies' overall effort;..."<br /><br />In other words, you first bash Allied leaders for some of their decisions, then proclaim that most everything else they did was acceptable. I see no distinctions being made for why the overall war was acceptable, yet particular actions of fighting the war were not.<br /><br />I think it entirely possible that we're both suffering the ravages of editorial discretion. Certainly I have had an eye toward honoring your state as priest and blog author, while still emphasizing where I believe you have erred. In many cases, I have been compelled to write and rewrite comments three or four times to address these constraints. Perhaps we have misunderstood each other quite badly. I certainly hope so. If not...it would seem to me that you have accused me of trying to make points, while committing that act yourself.<br />I don't care much for accusing a priest of hypocrisy, but I'm afraid your approach thus far doesn't leave me much chance to avoid making precisely that charge.<br /><br />For my purposes, you had already answered the question you asked of me. <br />What is your answer to the question that started this whole kerfuffle?<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-58375614767541718752017-05-09T12:32:57.057-04:002017-05-09T12:32:57.057-04:00John:
I don't mind answering questions, but I...John:<br /><br />I don't mind answering questions, but I find it astonishing that you demand I answer yours, but you have written paragraphs upon paragraphs, all while dodging answering even one of my questions. I find that amazing.<br /><br />To save you from having to scroll up, I'll repost the question I insist you answer, as a sign of good faith. <br /><br />To recap, you stated:<br /><br /><i>If we believe that taking the life of another or destroying property constitutes an act of evil, then fighting a war cannot be justified...</i><br /><br />And I asked you:<br /><br /><i>Yes, and when did I make that argument? Please quote me. Hint: I never did; that's why I suggest you try again.</i><br /><br />Now, this is a very simple question to answer. Either you can quote me saying that; or else you can say, whoops, I goofed, and mistook your argument.<br /><br />If you can't be bothered to answer this question, that tells me you aren't really interested in anything I have to say, but only in making your own points. That's fine, but in that case, there's no point in my continuing to engage in fake conversation (which is two-way, not one-way).Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-1744984343777659482017-05-09T11:12:51.737-04:002017-05-09T11:12:51.737-04:00Unfortunately, Fr Fox, if one may consider questio...Unfortunately, Fr Fox, if one may consider questions according to your view, we may also interpret questions according to mine. In your posting, you essentially declared that Allied leadership had erred gravely in some ways, especially with regard to Dresden et al. You did not go into detail, telling us instead to review the critiques from that time and/or since. Well, coming from my own background of a practicing Catholic and former military (Air Force weather) officer, I have done so over the years. In my first comment, I noted that I had read numerous critiques of the era; I noted that most critiques seemed to me to refuse to admit to the gravity of the war. In response, you told me that one may not commit evil. When I pointed out that such an objection could justify condemning having fought either World War II or the Crusades, you told me to ask a serious question.<br />Put simply, I have been challenging you with a difficult question since my first comment, which you have not yet answered: Why were these particular actions of World War II evil? More helpfully, why were these evil, but fighting the war in general was not?<br />For what it's worth, my investigation of these matters includes Archbishop Sheen, one pope or another, the Catechism, and a certain Fr John Ford (if memory serves). In the same document in which Fr Ford condemns the atomic bomb, he raises the question of whether the war could be fought at all. Sadly, he does not analyze this question, merely stating that many clergy seem to think it morally acceptable. Simply stated, he fails to address a key question.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-32923662803057559482017-05-09T09:53:38.915-04:002017-05-09T09:53:38.915-04:00John:
I asked my questions of you first. Don'...John:<br /><br />I asked my questions of you first. Don't believe me? Let's look back...<br /><br />I asked you several questions on May 6, 1:01 pm. No response from you.<br /><br />Then again on May 7, at 10:22 am. You ignored those questions.<br /><br />You asked your first question on May 7, 4:56 pm. <br /><br />I'll be happy to respond to your questions of May 7, 4:56 pm. when you answer my prior sets of questions.<br /><br />Or do you not think you have any obligation to respond to my questions? If you do, why do you think this?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-1316125487213553692017-05-09T00:20:24.986-04:002017-05-09T00:20:24.986-04:00Given that you have refused to answer my question,...Given that you have refused to answer my question, I think you hold a poor spot to be accusing me of being rude or brassy.<br />I'll ask one more time: Why was fighting World War II justifiable, yet strategic bombing--you called it "indiscriminate"--was not? Why could we justifiably fight World War II, but bombing Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki cannot be justified? Or, what could/should the Allies have done differently regarding the Holocaust?<br /><br />Nobody really wants to consider these hard questions, but they still need hard answers. If we can't, we fail to recognize the whole context, thus we make ourselves all the more likely to fail to respond to today's serious concerns.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13693728555801144332noreply@blogger.com