Karl Keating's E-Letter of Aug 17, 2004

[Forum Admin]

Karl's E-Letter of Aug 17, 2004

Topics:

Back to a Growing Church
Back to the Bomb
Back to the Voter's Guide
Back to the Wilderness

==========
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040817.asp

==========
To subscribe to the free weekly E-Letter, go to:
www.catholic.com/newsletters.asp

[dpillie]

Great comments and interesting news regarding growth of the Church. It is disappointing that some folks are taking such issue with the Voter's Guide. I ran across this story while surfing today, and was wondering what you thought of Cruise's mother's comments about Catholicism and Scientology?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ion=6.0.11.847

[Karl Keating]

Originally Posted by dpillie

Great comments and interesting news regarding growth of the Church. It is disappointing that some folks are taking such issue with the Voter's Guide. I ran across this story while surfing today, and was wondering what you thought of Cruise's mother's comments about Catholicism and Scientology?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ion=6.0.11.847

What I think is that Tom Cruise's mother doesn't have a clue. Neither does her son. Scientology not only is incompatible with Catholicism and with any other form of Christianity, it's a goofy, made-up religion, as founder L. Ron Hubbard admitted. (Well, he admitted it's a made-up religion; if you read about it, you'll see it's goofy.)

That Tom Cruise and John Travolta and other Hollywood celebrities have fallen for Scientology tells us only one thing: You don't need a discriminating intellect to be a successful actor.

[Arrowood]

Regarding Cruise: Poor Mary Lee needs some catechesis about true happiness (she is obviously using the world's definition). She shows the American protestant-inspired sense of individual interpretation of the faith ("I think Jesus wants me to be here right now. My church may not agree, but I personally know that."). Reading the article made it so obvious to me that Scientology has not brought Tom Cruise any sense of peace, love, or joy. He seems so angry and also seems to be exploring his "evil side."

Regarding the e-letter: Oh the irony! It's amazing to me how people who disagree with Karl's presentation and applications of the Church's teachings immediately condemn him to the fires of hell. Their main hangup seems to be Karl's apparent intolerance, yet they are so intolerant of him! What ever happened to reasoned discourse between people who disagreed with each other?

[qmvsimp]

Karl,

I liked your comments about the bomb in that you repudiated the majority argument that because Japan did bad things and would have done even more bad things does not make targeting civilians moral. However, it would have been nice had you included some of the refutations that the bombing intentionally targeted civilians. That is the true dispute as to its moral veracity. Just like the death penalty, we can disagree on this matter and still be orthodox catholics.

[bcoger]

Karl,

Meanwhile, back at the bomb, you say the following.

<What is going on is simple: I'm applying the Church's moral teaching, which unequivocally condemns the deliberate targeting of civilians during wartime. No exception is made in cases where enemy troops have been vicious or where the other side started the war. Just as it is always wrong to kill an innocent child (born or unborn), so it is always wrong to target civilians, even if something good (such as a quicker end to a war) may come from it.>

Would the divine Old Testament decrees to destroy men, women, and children be immoral if issued today?

[Karl Keating]

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had much by way of military industries or installations.

In Hiroshima there were 290,000 civilians and 43,000 soldiers. About 140,000 people died there, either immediately from the blast or later from burns that killed them by the end of 1945. By 1950 radiation sickness had killed another 60,000, so the total was about 200,000.

In Nagasaki 70,000 people died immediately or by the end of the year, and the total reached 140,000 when radiation poisoning was counted.

I take these figures from "The New Dealers' War" by Thomas Fleming, pages 540-543. Fleming quotes Truman as saying, after the first bomb was dropped, that it was "the greatest thing in history." Physicist Leo Szilard, who tried to prevent the bomb's use, called it "one of the greatest blunders in history."

Fleming attributes the use of the bombs to Roosevelt's earlier insistence on unconditional surrender (which was opposed by almost all of his generals). Fleming says the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific, was extended because of this novel demand, resulting in many Allied and enemy deaths that could have been prevented. But that's another story.

[Writer]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had much by way of military industries or installations.

In Hiroshima there were 290,000 civilians and 43,000 soldiers. About 140,000 people died there, either immediately from the blast or later from burns that killed them by the end of 1945. By 1950 radiation sickness had killed another 60,000, so the total was about 200,000.

In Nagasaki 70,000 people died immediately or by the end of the year, and the total reached 140,000 when radiation poisoning was counted.

I take these figures from "The New Dealers' War" by Thomas Fleming, pages 540-543. Fleming quotes Truman as saying, after the first bomb was dropped, that it was "the greatest thing in history." Physicist Leo Szilard, who tried to prevent the bomb's use, called it "one of the greatest blunders in history."

Fleming attributes the use of the bombs to Roosevelt's earlier insistence on unconditional surrender (which was opposed by almost all of his generals). Fleming says the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific, was extended because of this novel demand, resulting in many Allied and enemy deaths that could have been prevented. But that's another story.

Karl,

While I agree that you may have a valid point here, I am not quite prepared to concede to your argument. It seems that you are approaching this issue with linear thinking. Unfortunately, what seems clear to ethicists and thelogians today (sitting safely and comfortably at their keyboards), may have seemed less than clear to a President concerned (and frightened?) with the awesome responsibility of preserving the western world. While the murder of innocents is a horrible action to have to resort to, even Saint Thomas Aquinas supported the right of self defense. The question is whether "moderation" was employed in the way Saint Thomas Aquinas observed was necessary. I have to admit that it's been a few years since I read Paul Johnson's Modern Times, but I do believe we are often too quick to judge past leadership without taking the full context of the historical situation or environment into consideration. I argue that fear creates over-reaction, but can we blame the leadership for being fearful? While fear clouds reason, the cause or origin of that fear appears to be the ferocity of the Japanese unprovoked attack. Was it our moral error that we may have overreacted?

Lastly, you say that the Japanese civilians were innocents. I don't argue that many of them certainly were. However, it is worth pointing out that citizens can rise up against an unjust government to topple it to the ground. The government represents the people and their will. The Japanese will was for greater power and expansionism for their empire--glory for their own people. If the people could have taken up arms to destroy the government but did not, were they entirely innocent? If fear played a part in the Presidents decision to use atomic weapons, can we really blame him today for taking action?

Bottom line... Great debates could be had for hours on this topic, but their effect is pretty meaningless. God knows, and we trust Him to be the judge of right and wrong.

Best regards,

Karl Erickson

PS. As a strange aside to WWII, friends of my grandparents were the only US civilians I believe killed in the Continental US. It was a minister and wife taking children on a church picnic in the hills of southern Oregon. One of the Japanese "balloon bombs" killed the group when they tried to examine the strange object.

[Pax]

War is hell as the old saying goes, and it brings out the worst in mankind. If the Japanese could have somehow prevailed in World War ll, there is no question that they would have tried General Curtis LeMay as a war criminal for the fire bombings against Tokyo. Moreover, anyone associated with the use of the atomic bombs would have likewise been tried as war criminals.

While this may have been the case, that does not automatically mean that the Japanese view would correctly define these as war crimes. Just imagine, however, what the American view would be had the shoe been on the other foot, and we were the victims of these same attacks. There is no question that these events are a terrible blight on our country's history.

[rfk]

On a different note, I enjoyed all the camping photos you posted. I am not really much of a camper, but I've always had the bug.

I was curious about something, however. With bears, rattlesnakes, mountain lions, etc., do you camp with a firearm of any kind, or do you think they are unnecessary? I am also not sure if that is a California thing versus the Midwest. Around here, I'd simply feel better packing some protection.

[Sonya]

I really appreciate your e-letters, because they give me many insights which are true to our Catholic Faith. I agree that we were wrong in killing innocent civilians. I also agree with your voters guide and it has helped me make the right decisions concerning politics and voting as a Catholic citizen. I don't understand why some here on these forums have such disagreements about what the Catholic Church teaches.

I hope that your e-letters will help clear things up for those who disagree with the Truth, as they continue learning from you. I know that I learn something new everytime I read one of your e-letters. It's like having a college professor in Theology, which I never had before. Thank you.

[Ichthus]

Mr. Keating, you make note the the Church has went from 757 million in 1978 to 1.07 billion in 2004.

That is approximately a 41% growth

Current population according to the government census is 6.377 billion, in 1978 it was 4.303.

A 48% growth

IOW there are less Catholic proportionately today then in '78. I would suspect the decline of religion in developed countreis and protestant evangelism in South America

[Steve O'Brien]

Karl, I'd like to thank you again for upholding the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the sinfulness of intentionally killing non-combatants in warfare (CCC 2312-2314).

I like this wording for protest T-shirts and buttons: "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

Keep and spread the Faith.

[Karl Keating]

Originally Posted by rfk

I was curious about something, however. With bears, rattlesnakes, mountain lions, etc., do you camp with a firearm of any kind, or do you think they are unnecessary? I am also not sure if that is a California thing versus the Midwest. Around here, I'd simply feel better packing some protection.

No weapons needed or used.

There are no rattlesnakes at the elevations we visited. California does have one species that has been sighted as high as 11,000 feet, but that's in the desert not in the Sierra Nevada, where winter means snow--something rattlers don't like.

Bears aren't a problem so long as you don't try to get too close to a cub when Mama Bear is around. On our trip several people saw a bear near one of our campsites, but I didn't. (Although the state flag has a grizzly on it, there are no grizzlies in California--and haven't been, since around 1926. If I camped in grizzly country, procedures would be different.)

Mountain lions also aren't found where we were, there being no food for them there. They need something more substantial than a diet of ground squirrels and marmots. The deer are found at much lower elevations.

I never have come across a Sierra hiker who carried a gun. (Guns are not permitted in the areas I have hiked anyway.) The trails are so far away from the nearest towns that you also don't have townies causing a problem, as often is the case along the Appalachian Trail, which passes near many communities.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had much by way of military industries or installations.


Fleming attributes the use of the bombs to Roosevelt's earlier insistence on unconditional surrender (which was opposed by almost all of his generals). Fleming says the war, both in Europe and in the Pacific, was extended because of this novel demand, resulting in many Allied and enemy deaths that could have been prevented. But that's another story.

I usually agree with you but in this case must respectfully disagree. There are studies which show that the death toll would have been very great if we had invaded. I know my uncle,for one, was very glad we used the bombs because he was on a ship off the coast of Japan waiting for the word to invade. He said that they had been told to expect the civilians to defend their country to the death and be prepaired to kill them. We needed to end the war in the Pacific quickly to keep Russia out. If they had joined in Japan would have been divided just as Germany was. If Japan had been divided who knows what the world situation would be today? We can both play Monday morning quaterback, but the decision was not ours to make and now it is not ours to 2nd guess. We were much more generous with Japan and Germany than they would have been with us and that is what we as Christians are supposed to do. Lets pray for the victims on both sides and pray that noone ever uses an atomic weapon again.