Pope Francis prayed for peace Sunday at the site of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, where he called for an end to war and the threat of nuclear weapons.
“How can we propose peace if we constantly invoke the threat of nuclear war as a legitimate recourse for the resolution of conflicts?” Pope Francis said Nov. 24 in Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park.
“I felt a duty to come here as a pilgrim of peace, to stand in silent prayer, to recall the innocent victims of such violence, and to bear in my heart the prayers and yearnings of the men and women of our time, especially the young, who long for peace, who work for peace and who sacrifice themselves for peace,” Pope Francis said.
“With deep conviction I wish once more to declare that the use of atomic energy for purposes of war is today, more than ever, a crime not only against the dignity of human beings but against any possible future for our common home,” he said.
The pope repeated: “The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possession of atomic weapons is immoral, as I said two years ago. We will be judged on this.”
Earlier on Sunday, Pope Francis visited the site of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki where he denounced the ‘unspeakable horror’ of nuclear weapons.
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
Yet more and more countries seek to have an atomic capabillity.
I don’t understand a lot of what he does and says says. I wish we had someone like Benedict
Both statements are false. It is true that using or possessing nuclear weapons can be immoral, but if so, then it’s due to them being used or possessed in the wrong way, as when using or possessing them under the wrong circumstances or with an intention that is morally wrong. Intrinsically, however, there is nothing immoral about nuclear weapons any more than there is anything intrinsically immoral about a firearm.
Of course, because of the great potential of this sort of weapon to do harm, using or possessing a nuclear weapon of this sort would have to abide by the principle of double effect: any foreseen evil consequences would need to be unavoidable, unintended, and proportionate to the good that’s intended.
I’ve always thought that nuclear weapons were immoral and evil because, by design, they indiscriminately kill thousands (even millions) of innocent souls, and thus cannot be used in any moral way.
Residents of Tokyo, Dresden, Coventry and Rotterdam unavailable for comment.
Immorality lies with those who wield the weapon. Not the weapon itself,
I could argue, and have, that MAD kept nuclear war from happening. I could argue and have argued that the placement of tactical nukes in W Germany is one of the linch pins of the plans to confront and destroy the USSR and communism. Was the US and Ronald Reagan immoral for these actions? Were Catholics involved in these actions sinning?
Using a nuclear weapon (any weapon at all) to kill innocent, civilian life would of course be immoral, since just war requires the distinction between combatants and noncombatants. But there are scenarios in which the scale of devestation of which nuclear weapons are capable can still be justified, however rare they might be. An example is the case in which civilians have been employed throughout a major region in aid of military operations, as when helping to produce or hide weapons. Effectively, the state’s utilization of civilian resources like this makes the otherwise civilian region a military target, justifying its widespread destruction by an enemy (assuming the enemy has just cause to be at war to begin with).
Mr. Bill,
Your view is a popular misconception that is based on the hydrogen bomb. In truth, there are a vast array of nuclear weapons with different missions and purposes. For example, the U.S. Army has had small nuclear weapons fired from howitzers since as far back as the 1950s that were specifically designed for battlefield use. There are also more limited weapons such as the neutron bomb which has a much smaller blast radius and kills enemy combatants through intense, short-lived radiation.
Francis really does need a screener to vet his words in advance. Contrary to what the Pope said, there is nothing intrinsically evil about the use of atomic energy in warfare. Rather, it’s the type of nuclear weapon and its intended targets that makes it either moral or immoral. The exact same criteria apply to conventional weaponry.
What’s undisputed is that worshipping idols such as Pachamama is immoral and a violation of the First Commandment.
In WW2, 24 million died in Russia, 20 million died in China, 9 million died in Germany, 4 million died in the East Indies, 3 million in Japan, and a dozen other countries, including the US and Britain, suffered 1/2 million to a million casualties…So, how do you think the inhabitants of these nations felt when the war was finally ended, by the US and atomic bombs? Thank God, it was over!! Millions dead, and at last, it is over!
Of course, there were countries that did not suffer attacks or death in the war – like Argentina.
The greatest gift of the Francis papacy is the clear demonstration that not everything a pope says or teaches is true.
I would never have expected a Catholic to try to justify the use of nuclear weapons under any conditions. All of the “justifications” so far have been the result of circular thinking. Of course, the use of atomic weapons is immoral. For those who don’t understand the Pope, there seems to be a lot, there is a good article in Crux today that tries to explain how the use of a simple word like “people” is so different in the northern and southern hemispheres. It is a word that doesn’t translate well into English, especially when used in a theological sense. One suggestion in the article is that people from Argentina are often thought of as Italians who speak Spanish, dress like the English and think like the French. That pretty well explains our confusion, don’t you think?
Bob One,
I’ll refer you to my post to Mr. Bill above. If you think that nuclear weapons are still immoral in all cases after reading this, could you please explain what it is about nuclear energy that makes it’s use in combat immoral in all cases? Would it also be immoral to use nuclear energy to propel a combat vessel such as a submarine?
Michael in LA– how true!
Possessing atomic weapons is not immoral, nor is possessing a gun; possessing a condom likely is.
The question of intent is key to the first two possessions. Intent is not important to the last possession, except as it might apply to someone that possessed a condom in order to destroy it.
Once the NATO nations have given up their nuclear weapons, China and Russia will do the same. North Korea and Iran will cease to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. All of these nations will do this because they love God of course, especially China. China is a perfect example of Catholic social teaching that we should all be learning from.
Well spoken, anonymous (Nov 30 6:14). Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un together are unleashing a revolution of love, aided by Hassan Rouhani. No need for nuclear deterrence any longer! It’s all so simple!
Not sure how having a device designed to kill thousands of people at once isn’t immoral. The mental gymnastics to get there seem like a stretch. Equating it to firearms is silly.
After the attack on Japan with the atomic bomb the Vatican condemned the act. I don’t know were I stand right now with this.
Jeanne, this will be debated until the end of time. Truman made the right choice, IMO, given the likely consequences of even more deaths had the allies had to invade Japan itself. Such is the real world we live in…
It is not moral to commit evil hoping good will come of it. If good comes from evil, it is the Lord not the evil act that causes it.
Do the ends justifies the means?
No. The end does not justify the means.
Dear Anonymous,(10:04 am) you beg the question, and that is all.
Dan,
It’s immoral to kill non-combatants. In addition, some of the people that Truman killed where American POWs in Hiroshima.
Because the ends do not justify the means, Harry Truman is a mass murderer.
Steve, had we invaded Japan and killed 10 times the number of people in the process (combatants and non-combatants), would you then argue that this was moral, just because we didn’t use nukes? If so than please forgive me if I have trouble with your reasoning. If you would explain yourself more fully, I would be glad. .
Dan,
In your hypothetical, the answer depends upon how the non-combatants are killed. If the non-combatants were killed by mistake and, consequently, are relatively small in number, it remains moral to kill very large numbers of combatants that are trying to kill you. It’s not permissible to kill someone who isn’t trying to kill you unless the principle of double effect is in play. The moral issue has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
I fear that you may have succumbed to utilitarian thinking which tends to view people as objects. While such thinking appears innocent, it finds its ultimate fruition in the thinking of men like Pol Pot, Karl Marx, and Margaret Sanger.
Steve, I cannot reply to your reply, so I will reply to your earlier post. You seem to think of warfare as neat and tidy, that one can avoid civilian casualties at will while seeking to force a surrender. I doubt Harry Truman had such a Pollyanna vision that we Monday morning quarterbacks enjoy as we sip our lattes and act as armchair theologians. I have no interest in unreality, nor living in a dream world, nor did Truman when faced with the awful consequences of an invasion of mainland Japan. It would seem you number Truman among the monsters of history, I suggest you might think differently if you were in his shoes at the time.
Dan,
In my prior reply, I conceded that innocent civilians die by mistake in war. I’m a U.S. Army veteran and, I assure you, not a pollyanna about war. But the ugliness of war does not permit the willful and intentional killing of innocent civilians to avert it. To think otherwise has very serious ramifications for society and humanity which we’ve seen in the 20th Century. We see it today among pro-abortion activists and adherents of radical Islam.
Truman is a mass murderer, but he’s not a monster like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. These men were killers as a way of life. Truman, on the other hand, made two singular decisions that placed the deaths of 200,000 people on his soul.
I cried when my mother passed away, but not as much as on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima afterward. I was off from work that day. I cried for my mother and for family members at Pearl Harbor. Some were children on the military base who survived after seeing the planes coming. Their step father’s ship went down later, but he survived and took to drink because of the horror of it all. I cried for the British men whose faces were burnt off because of the type of planes they had to use. I cried for the children killed at the bombings of Dresden and in Japan. My step father, in the navy, was ready to go overseas when the bomb was dropped. He never went.
I also cried that day for the Filipinos and Guamanians who suffered through that war.
My husband’s father was aboard an American ship, also. He survived though injured. I cried the whole day at the horror of it all..
Hey! where did everybody go?
I guess reality has sunk in. It was at least twenty years ago that I had that crying spell. We should be thankful that it was none of us having to make those decisions, and we should pray that we never have to make such decisions.
May all the souls of the faithful departed of that generation finally rest in peace.
I am glad I am not in a position that makes it necessary for me to decide if nuclear weapons should be used to resist an attempt to destroy the entire population of my nation. I feel sorry for the souls who are.
The comments by some that the US is guilty of mass murder, with the use of Nuclear weapons, are made by younger people, who never have experienced the horror of a world war. They have not been subjected to the sheer terror, and the reality of violent death by any modern weapons. Do you think, O great moralists, that the million in Leningrad killed by starvation in WW2 do not really count?
Anonymous,
Killing innocent civilians as a method to avert, shorten, or end a war is immoral. War causes great violence, but using immoral means to avoid or end a war inevitably brings about even more violence.
The hundreds of thousands that died in Leningrad do count, but they were killed as the result of an immoral attack of a city and the unwillingness of the German army to allow civilians to leave. In other words, the German Army, like you, felt that the ends justify the means.
If the Nazi’s had moralists in control, they would never have started the war to begin with. Isn’t this the better solution?
So Steve, it is obvious that you would do not believe in the Right of Self Defense, and also, its OK to not lift a finger to help those being unjustly attacked. No, you will just sit by the fireplace, musing how ethical and noble you are. And “If the Nazis had moralists in control, they wouldn’t have started the war..” The point of this is, that the Nazis and Japanese Generals WERE in control! Not YOU! Keep on moralizing…and, God help us, that you and I never have to face the bombs crashing down on us…