What I find mind boggling and disconcerting is that Obama is more publically concerned over terroists being water boarded than he is about living babies being torn apart from limb to limb, or killed by having their skulls punctured or left to die on a metal slab if they are born during an abortion attempt. Obama promotes vicious, painful torture through murder, but stops our military from protecting our citizens against future attacks on this country. Where is the leadership in this man's thinking?

SDG, I won't play your rhetorical games because they are irrelevent.

Heh. Translation: "Thank you for answering my questions but I still won't answer yours."

and prolonged the war into 1947 or '48, according to those who have studied the issue

A claim you won't back up, even though you claim "all historians" agree. Presumably asking for evidence is just more of my rehetorical games.

That is more moral?

The difference is not quantitative. One course may be moral. The other is certainly not. There is no "more" about it.

SDG, I won't play your rhetorical games because they are irrelevent. What's not irrelevent is the following: Since you opposed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then you would have supported an invasion that would have cost more lives -- both American and Japanese -- and prolonged the war into 1947 or '48, according to those who have studied the issue. That is more moral?
If you think I'm putting thoughts (let alone words) in your mouth, then you fail to realize the consequences of your position. Remember, not only weren't the Japanese willing to surrender on the Allies' terms, they were more than willing to sacrifice their own citizens to preserve their political and military positions. That is more moral?

How many of those blog posts dealt with Pope JPII or Pope Benedict distributing the Eucharist to such politiciains? I'll bet damn few because of the papal cult of personality.
Well, let's see, a quick Google search yields this one, and this one. I'm sure I could amass quite a long list if I had the time to spare.
Regardless, Joseph, just because you don't personally witness the "outrage" doesn't mean it's there. You have no way of knowing how many people sent letters to their bishop or to the Pope in protest (and didn't say they did so on the Internet). I certainly don't post about it every time I write my bishop.
Regardless, Catholics should be outraged by pro-aborts abusing Communion AND by the ND scandal. There's no either/or; it's both/and.

"Jesus warned us of the coming Apocylypes"
He warned us against false prophets, too.
"Did you know that if you are in mortal sin you can not partake of the Eucharist lest you commit more mortal sin?"
Yes. The Church doesn't want those who have become separated from Jesus through grave sin to sin further by receiving Him unworthily.
"If you die in Mortal sin, you go straight to Hell, no Purgatory to cleanse your soul."
Only you or I can reject God. If we are not sorry for offending Him, and we die, we are CHOOSING to be separated from Him.

Joseph,
You still haven't answered my question. Look again at the simple syllogism in my last comment. Do you dispute either of the premises? Can you detect a formal error in the structure of the argument? Do you distinguish relevant differences of meaning among the terms? Or do you accept the conclusion as true? Those the only logically possible choices. Can you answer the question, or not?
By making this analogy, you are effectively comparing the attempt to preserve the lives of American servicemen (which all historians agree the bombings did) with "small-scale rape and murder."

No, I am not. I am testing your thesis that achieving victory in war "outweighs any other considerations." I see that you believe that achieving victory in war outweighs some other considerations, up to and including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I wish to inquire whether you really believe as you say that victory in war outweighs any other considerations, including, e.g., rape and murder.
My question does not "compare" the attempt to preserve the lives of American servicemen with small-scale rape and murder. My question posits small-scale rape and murder as a means of preserving the lives of one's own fighters. Rape and murder can be effective ways of cowing a civilian populace and thereby of reducing risk to one's fighters. They are used that way in conflicts taking place right now. Do you condemn this in principle, or only when the cause itself is unjust?

The analogy falls on its face, moreso when the facts of the situation are examined.

Since you misread me as making an analogy where I made none, I'm not surprised you think my nonexistent analogy falls on its imaginary face.
Incidentally, I notice that in claiming that I misread you, you re-quote your uncontroversial comment "The commander-in-chief has a moral obligation to be responsible for the lives of his troops..." with which of course I agree, but then omit your earlier claim that this responsibility "outweighs any other considerations in wartime."
My question, which you continue not to answer, is a very simple one: Does "any other considerations" include both nuclear holocaust and rape and murder, or does it include only nuclear holocaust but not rape and murder?
You ask: "What do you do if you have to choose between only two options, both of which will result in massive loss of life, and you cannot avoid making the choice." I answer: So far you haven't given me enough information to answer the question concretely, but I can give you a general summary. I will choose whatever option I judge mostly likely to result in the best possible outcome, i.e., causing the least possible loss of life, above all to American civilians, next to American soldiers, next to enemy civilians, and finally to enemy soldiers, where loss of life is a foreseen and accepted consequence of acting and not a means to an end.
I would defend American soil and American soldiers, where necessary killing enemy soldiers, and even taking necessary tactical decisions when this will mean loss of civilian life. However, not every act that may result in lower mortality to American soldiers can thereby be adjudicated "defense." I would bomb a tactically significant target even if I know that civilians may or even definitely will die, because the target itself is a threat to my soldiers. But I will not bomb population centers to achieve desired psychological outcomes among the enemy leadership and populace — which is what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, rationalizations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Suppose a concentration camp commandant orders me, on pain of shooting ten of my fellow soldiers, to rape a woman or murder an innocent child. In that circumstance, rape and murder would result in lower mortality to my fellow soldiers. But I would not do it. Would you? I answered your question; you answer mine.

"So leave him alone and get rid of the sin in your own camp before insulting Obama!!"
I guess you haven't read all those apologies from the popes for the sins of Catholics? Once, just once, I'd like to see someone other than Catholics apologize.

I think Recovering Catholic has told us two things:
1) What is the nature of his sin which is preying on his conscience
2) That he requests our prayers

ObamaFan: Thank you for dropping by to express your anti-Catholic bigorty.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has released its report on the rate of child molestations committed by priests since 1950 to 2002.
The report indicates that 81% of sex crimes committed against children were by homosexual men. The study discovered 10,667 cases of abuse.
The homosexual sex abuse of children involved 4,392 priests, which constituted 4% of the 109,694 clergy working in the Catholic church between 1950-2002.
The report also indicated the church paid out almost $600 million for lawsuits or for counseling for homosexual priests.
Yes Rome is burning and the wise better leave the ship. Jesus warned us of the coming Apocylypes

When Rome was burning they blamed the Christians. Now that the Catholic church is burning she blames Notre Dame, Obama, and any other scapegoat she can find.

Look Catholics are so inconsistent with the Eucharist it makes me sick. Did you know that if you are in mortal sin you can not partake of the Eucharist lest you commit more mortal sin? Now the clincher! If you and your wife practice birth control using a condom you are practicing mortal sin. Thus 90% of Catholics are in mortal sin and should be denied the Eucharist. However the wishy washy priests don't want to tell you this otherwise there would be a mass Exodus from the church.
If you die in Mortal sin, you go straight to Hell, no Purgatory to cleanse your soul. So let them criticize Obama who is not a Catholic, this gives Catholics an opportunity to ignore their own double standards and hypocracy.

Very well, SDG, let me address your question:
One of our Catholic "peculiarities of thought" is that we believe that it is wrong to do evil that good may result. While I will not bandy projections of different scenarios -- others might defend alternate projections -- a tragic outcome is "more moral" than an immoral one, yes. Suppose you could prevent large-scale loss of life by small-scale rape and murder. Would you take that trade-off?
By making this analogy, you are effectively comparing the attempt to preserve the lives of American servicemen (which all historians agree the bombings did) with "small-scale rape and murder." The analogy falls on its face, moreso when the facts of the situation are examined.
Now, let me get to another comment you made:
Me: Truman, as the commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces, had a moral obligation to be responsible for the lives of his troops in achieving victory. That outweighs any other considerations in wartime.
You: In other words, in war the end always justifies the means and there are no morally unacceptable means? The early Christians would have thought you were crazy.
You deliberately misinterpreted my comment. Read it again: The commander-in-chief has a moral obligation to be responsible for the lives of his troops...
It is that moral obligation which is paramount (it is assumed that any commander-in-chief attempts to pursue victory; you're just too dense to understand that).
Meanwhile, you have not addressed the issue that I indirectly posed to you: What do you do if you have to choose between only two options, both of which will result in massive loss of life, and you cannot avoid making the choice. That is the dilemma Truman faced; you're "Catholic" cliches of "the end never justifies the means" and "you cannot do evil so that good may result," in this context, are nothing but cop-outs.
Now, JoAnna, to you:
The outcry regarding the ND scandal simply gets more press because it involves Obama. But I've certainly seen many blog posts and related articles regarding psuedo-Catholic pro-abortion politicians receiving communion.
How many of those blog posts dealt with Pope JPII or Pope Benedict distributing the Eucharist to such politiciains? I'll bet damn few because of the papal cult of personality.

Obama is a great man and is worthy of receiving an award. At least he is not a pedophile, homosexual priest, or a Crusader persecuting Jews, Christians, or Muslims.
So leave him alone and get rid of the sin in your own camp before insulting Obama!!

"Read some history, SDG, and stop trying to hide behind pseudo-lofty rhetoric."
Some people are always trying to ski uphill.

So you admit, then, that it was a trick question, SDG -- which means it was not worth the trouble for me to answer it.

Whoa. Ladies and gentlemen, behold the non sequitur in action.
Dude. When Jesus asked the Pharisees whether John's baptism was from God or from men, there was no good way for them to answer the question -- because they had staked out a false position. Jesus' question smoked them out of hiding; the only way to answer it without admitting they were wrong was not to answer.
Which is what they did, and what you are doing.
Syllogism:
P1. Achieving victory in war outweighs all other considerations.
P2. The wrongness of rape and murder is a consideration other than achieving victory in war.
C. Therefore, achieving victory in war outweighs the wrongness of rape and murder.
The logical structure is syllogistically valid; that is, the conclusion does follow logically from the premises. Therefore, you must either accept the conclusion or deny at least one of the premises. Which do you choose? Let me know if you're still having difficulty with this.

Well, JoAnna, where's the mass hue and outcry over these papal actions? Certainly, the outcry about the American bishops' response far outweighs any outcry over the papal response by a long margin.
Why do you say there's not an outcry?
The outcry regarding the ND scandal simply gets more press because it involves Obama. But I've certainly seen many blog posts and related articles regarding psuedo-Catholic pro-abortion politicians receiving communion.

The fact is, given the position you have staked out, there is no good way for you to answer the question. If you say "No," then you admit it is not true that achieving victory in war outweighs any other considerations. If you say "Yes," then you condone monstrous behavior that is transparently antithetical to Christian ethics.
So you admit, then, that it was a trick question, SDG -- which means it was not worth the trouble for me to answer it.
Is that why we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- to stop the civilian populations there from conducting guerrilla warfare against invading forces?
In a matter of speaking, yes. We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save American lives -- specifically, those who likely would have been killed by invading a country where the government turned the civilians into guerrillas. You refuse to realize that the Japanese government had the moral responsibility for protecting its own civilians by giving up its attempt to continue a war it could not win and surrender.
Read some history, SDG, and stop trying to hide behind pseudo-lofty rhetoric.
Finally, I suggest that you read anything written by Fr. James Schall regarding the use of nuclear weapons. He is a political science professor at Georgetown (and certainly no liberal).

There is always conversion for Obama:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/20...

I didn't because it is an asinine question that doesn't deserve a response.

I have never noticed donkeys asking questions. I do know of a report of such an incident -- and it was a good question that deserved a response.
The fact is, given the position you have staked out, there is no good way for you to answer the question. If you say "No," then you admit it is not true that achieving victory in war outweighs any other considerations. If you say "Yes," then you condone monstrous behavior that is transparently antithetical to Christian ethics.
In reality, you already condone monstrous behavior that is antithetical to Christian ethics, simply by saying that achieving victory in war outweighs any other considerations. You just haven't noticed yet.

I would suggest that you read my last response to Leo, in which I say that Japan's militarist government, not the United States, had the ultimate moral responsibility for protecting its own civilians -- instead of turning them into guerrillas to protect its own posterior.

Is that why we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- to stop the civilian populations there from conducting guerrilla warfare against invading forces? No. It was not tactical, it was terrorism.
AFAICT, for you "terrorism" must either be a meaningless pejorative term, or else it must denote tactics that are neutral in themselves, and only become bad when used in the service of a bad cause. When used in the service of a good cause, they must be legitimate, since you say achieving victory in war outweighs any other considerations. Right?

Several American historians led by Robert Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued. Newman et al. challenge whether an assessment of Truman's decision can highlight only the deaths of noncombatant civilians in the aggressor nation while ignoring much larger death tolls among noncombatant civilians in the victim nations.

"I didn't because it is an asinine question that doesn't deserve a response."
Heh... in other words, he is loathe to admit that his own logic (or lack thereof) has painted him into a corner, so, no, he won't answer.
By that point in the war, victory over Japan was assured. Truman's choice was between victory with honor and victory without honor. He chose the second option. I know the word "honor" (let alone the concept) may be strange to many in this age, but there you go.
And speaking of honor, it might have been possible to negotiate a peace with Japan, had we even considered leaving the Japanese people a little honor in defeat, or at least the pretense of some honor. Had we allowed them to retain some kind of fig leaf, many lives might have been saved, but we insisted on unconditional surrender and total humiliation... on principle.

Joseph: Instead, I have asked Catholics who are angry with that decision why they are not angry with Popes (including the admired JPII) who have distributed the Eucharist to Italian politicians who support legalized abortion.
JoAnna: Who says they're not?
Well, JoAnna, where's the mass hue and outcry over these papal actions? Certainly, the outcry about the American bishops' response far outweighs any outcry over the papal response by a long margin.
Now, SDG, to you:
I notice you didn't respond to my question about whether you would condone preventing large-scale loss of life with small-scale rape and murder.
I didn't because it is an asinine question that doesn't deserve a response.
In other words, in war the end always justifies the means and there are no morally unacceptable means? The early Christians would have thought you were crazy.
Did the early Christians face the kind of dilemma that Truman faced, namely, to decide between one of two options, both of which would result in mass casualties? That was the reality of the situation, a reality that you not only ignore, but mock.
Do you forget how many American soldiers lost their lives during WWII? Do you know how many lost their lives on Iwo Jima alone? Or on Okinawa alone? Or, for that matter, were wounded in either battle? Do you think that any commander-in-chief who presided over such a situation would be morally responsible if he did not think of the best interests of his men, first and foremost?
I would suggest that you read my last response to Leo, in which I say that Japan's militarist government, not the United States, had the ultimate moral responsibility for protecting its own civilians -- instead of turning them into guerrillas to protect its own posterior.

Joseph --
Instead, I have asked Catholics who are angry with that decision why they are not angry with Popes (including the admired JPII) who have distributed the Eucharist to Italian politicians who support legalized abortion.
Who says they're not?

There is a coalition of pro-life groups on the Notre Dame campus that is strongly opposing the decision to honor the President Obama. The group has made a statement that can be viewed at their website: www.ndresponse.com and are planning ways to protest and respond to this invitation.

Is it impossible (like AmP, I argree it's unlikely) that orthodox Catholics might score a victory this time?
It looks as though this may in fact come to pass. While I am not a student at Notre Dame, I do have contacts. I received this tonight:
Actually, I was going to post, but it is all up at this website anyhow: http://www.ndresponse.com/commissions.html

JoAnna, I have never -- in any of my comments on this thread -- defended Notre Dame's decision to invite Obama to receive an honorary degree. Instead, I have asked Catholics who are angry with that decision why they are not angry with Popes (including the admired JPII) who have distributed the Eucharist to Italian politicians who support legalized abortion (I withdraw my comments about pectoral crosses). I have yet to hear a legitimate answer.
Leo, I am not confused. I am, however, angry. I am angry at people who engage in Monday-morning moral quarterbacking of responsible people who have to choose between equally unpleasant alternatives and only those alternatives without facing the same alternatives themselves.
Do we have the freedom to pursue injustice? Yes, but all acts have consequences. IOW, I am free to come and burn down your house. I am not free to avoid the consequences of such an act (civil and criminal penalties, divine condemnation). That's the whole idea behind law.
Not all free choices are moral ones. Nevertheless, morality cannot exist without freedom; otherwise, people are nothing but robots and, therefore, are not morally responsible for how they use their freedom.
In your arguments against dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you place no moral responsibility on the Japanese government for continuing what, under all objective criteria, was a hopeless war. They could not win, let alone recover their lost territories. Nevertheless, they continued to fight for its own sake, for its own twisted ideas of national honor. The United States gave the Japanese a choice: accept the Allies' surrender terms or face destruction. The Japanese militarists made their choice and, as a result, their citizens paid with their lives. Once they actually saw Hiroshima, they had an even greater moral obligation to their citizens. It was the Japanese militarists who morally failed in this episode.

Terrific, PJ. Oh, this blog does attract talent.

Dear Members of the Notre Dame Community, and Esteemed Friends,
We are proud to announce that Notre Dame has invited President Barack Obama to give this year’s commencement address. Although President Obama differs with members of our community on some issues, the University’s commitment to diversity and dialogue means that we welcome speakers who can share different perspectives with our students. Given the importance that the University places on honoring diverse points of view, we are also proud to announce that we have taken the unprecedented step of lining up the following commencement speakers for the next five years:
1. 2010 -- Bernie Madoff and Jeff Skilling, who will give a joint address on “Business Ethics as an Embodiment of Catholic Social Teaching,” a theme which is more important than ever in these challenging economic times. Mr. Madoff and Mr. Skilling will share their extensive business experience which they gained, respectively, as a personal investment advisor and as an executive at Enron Corporation. Due to unavoidable circumstances, Mr. Madoff and Mr. Skilling will be unable to travel to South Bend for the address, but will appear by videoconference by special arrangement with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Some members of the Notre Dame community have expressed misgivings about this invitation, but we stress the importance of keeping an open mind to other, enriching points of view.
2. 2011 -- The Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, who will speak on “The Place of Catholics in American Society.” Unfortunately, there has always been a great deal of misunderstanding between this University and the KKK. At times, Notre Dame has failed to be as receptive as it could have been to the Klan’s diverse point of view, given unfortunate incidents in which members of our football team have disrupted Klan rallies in South Bend and beaten up its members. Other members of our community have sometimes reacted emotionally to the Klan’s advocacy of expelling the Catholic faith from these shores, without taking the time to understand their unique and diverse point of view. We look forward to the Grand Wizard’s visit, and hope it will be an occasion of understanding and mutual forgiveness.
3. 2012 – Hu Jintao, Paramount Leader of the People’s Republic of China, who give an address on “The Meaning of Family Life,” and how China’s innovative family policies hold many lessons for us. As the place of family holds an important place in our Catholic faith, we eagerly anticipate learning from and dialoguing with Premier Jintao.
4. 2013 – Christopher Hitchens, renowned English author, who will give an address on “The Proper Place of Religious Faith in Society,” and will make the case that we are better off without it. Mr. Hitchens will also encourage Catholics to engage in the sort of beneficial self-examination that we all too often avoid, and will use our sometimes uncritical admiration for Blessed Mother Teresa as a case in point, explaining why he "wishes there really was a Hell for the b**ch to go to." We look forward to learning from Mr. Hitchens about the virtues of the New Atheism.
5. 2014 – Kim Jong-Il, who will give an address on “Religious Liberty in the 21st Century.” Mr. Jong-Il, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic Korea, will share his unique perspective on religious liberty with our graduates. Religious liberty has always been an important theme in American Catholic life, and we look forward to the opportunity to dialogue with the Dear Leader. Some of the more excitable members of our community have expressed a distressingly close-minded attitude towards the Dear Leader’s visit to Our Lady’s University, merely because any North Koreans who are found to be practicing the Catholic faith are subject to summary execution. We urge all members of our community to reflect on the need for greater tolerance of all points of view (except, of course, for our own).
Yours in Christ,
The University of Notre Dame

Truman, as the commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces, had a moral obligation to be responsible for the lives of his troops in achieving victory. That outweighs any other considerations in wartime.

In other words, in war the end always justifies the means and there are no morally unacceptable means? The early Christians would have thought you were crazy.
I notice you didn't respond to my question about whether you would condone preventing large-scale loss of life with small-scale rape and murder. Is that because you believe that achieving victory in war "outweighs any other considerations"?
Too busy for now to write more, back later.

In this context? Obviously.

Oh, context matters? Then one cannot tell simply by pointing to the sharp edges of words like "perfidy" or "brood of vipers" whether a charge of uncharity is warranted?

How circular.

Is your "In this context? Obviously" "circular"? No. We disagree, and have each stated our convictions. Nothing "circular" about that, except in the eye of one who takes a statement of one's position as an argument for the same.

Joseph D'Hippolito
I'll assume, for now, that you are confused and angry rather than trolling.
Freedom and Justice - which has priority?
consider these statements:
Ought I to be free to perform an injustice?
Can it be just to restrict some freedoms eg my freedom to burn your house down.
We say it is just or unjust to restrict particular freedoms. But I don't think we can make the converse statement.
And if you read Anscombe you will see she is not a pacifist.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand one more...

"Those of us Catholics in the under-40s, who were born after Vatican II, and who only recall two Popes in our lives, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, are inheriting the wasteland of the culture wars that have decimated Western society. Like appeasement makers of old, we are led by Catholic priests who announce that a Catholic university is 'honored' by the presence of an individual who intends to persecute Catholic institutions that do not bend to his will. We are soft, and we are too willing to shrug our shoulders and say, 'What can I do?'" -- William Newton

From Amy Welborn:
"...the invitation by Notre Dame is not rooted in a clear sense of Catholic identity and purpose, but in a desire for public stature and prestige. Respect for the office of the President of the United States is one thing, but the honorary doctor of laws degree is not being given simply to an office; it is being conferred upon a specific man who holds specific beliefs about essential matters relating to law, order, goodness, conscience, and life, that are in conflict with the fundamental moral principles of the Catholic Church and, it should follow, a Catholic university."

Notre Dame invites a president who supports legalized abortion to receive an honorary degree, and is (justifiably) criticized. Yet Pope JPII gave a pectoral cross to the head of a church that does not share his views on abortion, and Catholics remain silent
Obama doesn't just support legalized abortion. He supports infanticide, the direct cloning and/or killing of embryos for research purposes, the Freedom of Choice Act -- which would remove ALL restrictions from abortion nationwide, including parental notification laws -- AND he has called babies "punishments." He also thinks that Christian physicians who oppose abortion should be forced to perform them.
That is a far, far cry from merely "supporting legalized abortion." Obama doesn't just support legalized abortion, he supports the complete annihilation of anything remotely resembling pro-life morality.
And please, stop with the pectoral cross nonsense. If JPII had given him the cross during a graduation ceremony and said, "This is because you're such an avid supporter of abortion rights," then your analogy might be accurate. But he didn't -- quite the contrary -- so it's not. If I give a cross necklace as a gift to my anti-Catholic relative, it doesn't mean I'm condoning her views, it means I'm giving her a gift that I think she might like -- no more, no less. If I honor someone at a graduation ceremony with a legal degree, I probably agree with him on most if not all points; at the very least, I think he's a person worthy of honoring.
Finally, I'd advise reading this article from the Wall Street Journal.

"...the Japanese were never going to agree to "unconditional surrender"
That makes it sound as if conditional surrender is out of the question.
"Conditional surrender," in this case, was out of the question because the Japanese wanted, among the conditions, to keep the Emperor and the military intact and not to turn in their weapons.
Many citizens cannot accept moral limits on their freedom of action during pregnancy or in time of war. Freedom is often valued more than justice or the Good News. The Gospel of Life is challenging and unsettling.
Leo, may I remind you that God created us in his free image because God is the ultimate free Being in the universe?!?!? Of course, freedom can be abused to subjugate or destroy others.
But without freedom, justice becomes mocked and turns into a plaything of the totalitarians. In this case, freedom means protection of individual rights and opportunity to redress legitimate grievances.
Without freedom, the Good News becomes impossible to embrace. God wants people to love Him freely, not by compulsion.
As far as the "Gospel of Life" is concerned, Leo, God would not have fit Anscombe's definitions because, in the Old Testament, God demanded that the Israelites anihiliate such enemies as the Amalekites and Canaanites. Why? As judgement against such sins as human sacrifice. Why did God allow the Assyrians and Babylonians to capture the Israelites and take them into exile? Same reason; as divine judgement for their failure to follow God.
Of course, humanity can warp God's name and misuse it for its own purposes. But here's the point: God is not a pacifist. If that were the case, then divine condemnation would not be so powerful.
Besides, the "Gospel of Life," as promulgated by JPII, is a farce. In its attempt to define human dignity, it effectively gives a dignity to murderers that revelation does not warrant (just look at JPII's public appeals to abolish capital punishment, which God established as the appropriate punishment for murder).
Finally, regarding this comment from Anscombe:
Those, therefore, who think they must be prepared to wage a war with Russia involving the deliberate massacre of cities, must be prepared to say to God: 'We had to break your law, lest your Church fail. We could not obey your commandments, for we did not believe your promises.'
First, the Church has failed! It has failed by playing a political role for its own benefit and by revering that role and its political influence more than its divine calling. Just as the Middle Eastern Christians who are in communion w/Rome and suffer under Muslim persecution.
Second, history has proven Anscombe wrong. The United States and USSR did not engage in nuclear war precisely because their weapons were so destructive; nobody wanted to take the chance of starting a worldwide holocaust.
Third, and most important, societies have the obligation to protect their citizens from attack. Just as those who support abortion on demand would sacrifice the innocent to their agenda, so would pacifist idiots like Anscombe sacrifice the innocent to their utopian, esoteric views. To Hell with them all!!

Oh, yeah: and pray for it.

Another troll. Time to starve it.

Would comments like "brood of vipers", and "you make him twice as fit for hell as you are yourselves", also be the least charitable view?
In this context? Obviously.
What would be a less charitable view? ... One that wasn't true.
How circular.
"Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less frequent occurrence."

What would be a less charitable view?

One that wasn't true. Truth is not contrary to charity. When perfidy occurs, merely to say so is not uncharitable.
Oh, and: What bill912 said.

Faithful Catholics cannot be anti-abortion and pro-using nuclear weapons on cities.
Many citizens cannot accept moral limits on their freedom of action during pregnancy or in time of war. Freedom is often valued more than justice or the Good News. The Gospel of Life is challenging and unsettling.
During the Cold War, Elizabeth Anscombe wrote:

So we have to fear God and keep his commandments, and calculate what is for the best only within the limits of that obedience, knowing that the future is in God's power, and that no one can snatch away those whom the Father has given to Christ. ... Those, therefore, who think they must be prepared to wage a war with Russia involving the deliberate massacre of cities, must be prepared to say to God: 'We had to break your law, lest your Church fail. We could not obey your commandments, for we did not believe your promises.'

War and Murder (from my Notre Dame link above).
A fuller excerpt from Anscombe's War and Murder is at Vox Nova
along with a link to "an open letter to Obama" at the top of that page, referring to FOCA etc..

Would comments like "brood of vipers", and "you make him twice as fit for hell as you are yourselves", also be the least charitable view?

"It all depends on whom one is more afraid of disrespecting."

Have we all adopted the least charitable view at hand?
... betrayal ... perfidy ... treachery ... cynicism ... contempt of the Church ... a deliberate thumbing of the nose at the Roman Catholic Church ... an unequivocal abandonment of any pretense at being a Catholic university ... attention-seeking ... sold its soul for secular prestige ...
What would be a less charitable view?

"...the Japanese were never going to agree to "unconditional surrender"
That makes it sound as if conditional surrender is out of the question.

SDG, this is what I mean concering peculiar inconsistencies of thought:
Notre Dame invites a president who supports legalized abortion to receive an honorary degree, and is (justifiably) criticized. Yet Pope JPII gave a pectoral cross to the head of a church that does not share his views on abortion, and Catholics remain silent.
Moreover, the current and previous Pope both distribtue(d) the Eucharist to Italian legislators who support legalized abortion, and "devout" Catholics utter not a peep!!
I guess if you're the Pope, you can live under your own laws, and have fellow Catholics believe you're doing the right thing. But I digress....
Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's very easy for bishops and lay apologists (like Karl Keating and Mark Shea) to make moral judgements for which they do not have to be responsible. It's called Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Truman, as the commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces, had a moral obligation to be responsible for the lives of his troops in achieving victory. That outweighs any other considerations in wartime. To extend the war against Japan would have resulted in more casualties -- not only to American troops but also to Japanese "civilians," who would have become guerrillas if the Japanese military had its way (so much for the idea of "noncombatants").
Truman, essentially, had two choices: Refuse to use the bomb, continue in non-productive diplomacy (the Japanese were never going to agree to "unconditional surrender") and risk more American lives. Or, use the bomb, reduce the risk to American troops and possibly shorten the war. History has proven Truman's decision to be correct.
Had the Japanese agreed to surrender unconditionally before Hiroshima, the bombs never would have been used -- especially when you consider that the Japanese had no hope of victory at this point; their military forces and industrial capability were decimated.
One more thing: I may suggest that the United States was, in this instance, God's instrument of judgement against a Japanese Empire whose military representatives performed some of the greatest atrocities seen in wartime (starting in 1931 with the invasion of China) while promoting a racist policy against fellow Asians -- and whose "noncombatant civilians" merely stood and watched.
Sort of reminds you of the Catholic response to the clerical sex-abuse crisis, doesn't it?

I meant spammers, but Typepad still sucks, anyway.

And Typepad sucks!!! It likes trolls but doesn't like me!

Dear Joseph
This discussion made me remember having read a lengthy debate about the subject on Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong's blog (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9), triggered by the article that the great Thomas Sowell sadly publishes every August defending the bombing.
If I remember correctly, the bottom line of the argument against its defense was that, although there could have been possible mitigating factors involved in the decision, since the argument of 1 million deaths by a land invasion was sold as reliable to Truman even if it wasn't, the bombings can't be defended on a moral level.
And we Catholics have even more reasons to oppose it, when we learn about this (scroll down), which is even linked in one of the posts above.

I am a practicing Catholic and after years of hard study I am hoping to go to medical school. If President Obama succeeds in removing the "conscience clause", which protects healthcare workers from having to cooperate in abortion, I may be forced to train to perform abortions while in medical school and during my residency. Depending upon which specialty I eventually choose, I may be forced to refer patients out to abortionists, or to perform them myself.
Since I will refuse to participate in abortion in any way and at all stages of my education, training, and practice, I may, depending upon when these matters are settled in the courts, be unable to complete medical school, be unable to complete my residency, or be sued and forced to close down my practice. Any of these outcomes would result in crushing debt for many physicians and students, as well as an inability to practice their vocations -- because they are Catholic. How is forcing Catholic institutions and individuals out of a sector as large as health care not persecution?
How can a Catholic University honor this man?