Wednesday, September 10, 2008
-
The Church Can't Justify the A-Bomb
from sirnickdon
Father George Zabelka was the Catholic chaplain to the Catholic pilot who dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. Ater many years and much work with ecumenical councils, Father Zabelka reflected on his part in the war.
For the first three centuries, the three centuries closest to Christ, the Church was a pacifist Church. With Constantine the church accepted the pagan Roman ethic of a just war and slowly began to involve its membership in mass slaughter, first for the state and later for the faith.
Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, whatever other differences they may have had on theological esoterica, all agreed that Jesus’ clear and unambiguous teaching on the rejection of violence and on love of enemies was not to be taken seriously. And so each of the major branches of Christianity by different theological methods modified our Lord’s teaching in these matters until all three were able to do what Jesus rejected, that is, take an eye for an eye, slaughter, maim, torture.
It seems a "sign" to me that seventeen hundred years of Christian terror and slaughter should arrive at August 9, 1945 when Catholics dropped the A-Bomb on top of the largest and first Catholic city in Japan. One would have thought that I, as a Catholic priest, would have spoken out against the atomic bombing of nuns. (Three orders of Catholic sisters were destroyed in Nagasaki that day.) One would have thought that I would have suggested that as a minimal standard of Catholic morality, Catholics shouldn’t bomb Catholic children. I didn’t.
I, like that Catholic pilot of the Nagasaki plane, was heir to a Christianity that had for seventeen hundred years engaged in revenge, murder, torture, the pursuit of power and prerogative and violence, all in the name of our Lord.
I walked through the ruins of Nagasaki right after the war and visited the place where once stood the Urakami Cathedral. I picked up a piece of a censer from the rubble. When I look at it today I pray God forgives us for how we have distorted Christ’s teaching and destroyed His world by the distortion of that teaching. I was the Catholic chaplain who was there when this grotesque process, which began with Constantine, reached its lowest point – so far.
Elsewhere, Father Zabelkas came with strong words for ecumenical councils, warning that
It is about time for the Church and its leadership in all denominations to get down on its knees and repent of this misrepresentation of Christ’s words.
Communion with Christ cannot be established on disobedience to His clearest teachings. Jesus authorized none of His followers to substitute violence for love; not me, not you, not Jimmy Carter, not the pope, not a Vatican council, nor even an ecumenical council.
Sadly, I am afraid that the church has gained too much power, and will never willingly follow its Lord in letting it go.
Do you think the church has gone too far with "the pursuit of power and prerogative and violence?"
Read the complete interview with Rev. Zabelka here
-
recommend
- recs 3
- give stars
- votes 3
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (82)
No, I don't in this case. I believe war is necessary and sometimes just. I believe the A-bomb probably prevented years of suffering and death due to protracted conflict.
As you know, I do not believe in pacifism, nor do I agree with your view of the second world war. Jesus taught personal humility and love for enemies. He did not tell soldiers to abandon their posts. It is possible to personally love an enemy and also to believe that justice must prevail and evil must be punished, and I believe God sometimes uses people to punish it. I believe God anoints soldiers when their cause is just, as He did in the Old Testament.
I believe that the Church as an institution (not as the body of Christ) has done terrible things, such as the Inquisition. However, I don't believe that pacifism is the answer. Some war is just, and some isn't. I believe the correct response is to distinguish between them.
The A-Bomb was simply a technological improvement on the methods of battle at the time, where cities from London to Dresden to Tokyo to Nagasaki were targeted by aerial bombing, where armies dropped tons of bombs on targets in an intent to advance their cause of war, either by destroying military targets (and if civilians die, tough), or by attempting to break morale (either to end a war or keep a potential enemy out of it.)
I admit I don't have a good answer for this, but what would Jesus tell Caesar to do? How does a 'Christian' government act? How does it wield the Romans 13 sword?
(I note that when soldiers asked Jesus' predecessor John for advice, John didn't tell them to quit being soldiers...)
The Bible is still the same for every Christian, whether they are a persecuted super-minority, or a member of a majority. The issues we face are slightly different (how would Jesus vote, or what bills would Jesus introduce if He were in a city council / state legislature / US Senate?)
I know...just more questions.
to answer the question: yes. I think this is evident and I think that when the church tries to pursue power, it loses its purpose. However, I do not think that Christians should never go to war. There is a time for war, but I think that Christians should first try to win peace thru love.
The problem occurs when the church loves power instead of God.
@Romans_837@xanga - Good comment.
@No_Off_Season_7@xanga - Excellent point.
Imagine a country ruled by a church (whether Catholic or Protestant, doesn't matter.)
Under what circumstances should that country muster its army, and go forth and fight?
* Invaded by neighbor?
* Genocide in neighboring country?
* Neighbor invaded by their neighbor?
* Neighbor violating UN commands?
One more thought...although the United States was once (and may
still be) a Christian nation, the US is not its church, and vice
versa.
Truman dropped the bomb, not Billy Graham or the pope.
Our
wars in the 20th/21st century are not church-inspired crusades, but
nation-state against nation-state. At least, as far as I can see.
Japan started it; the bomb ended it. Those bombs saved millions of lives on both sides.
Besides, the Catholic Church, which brought us the inquisition, has no right lecturing the rest of humanity on mercy.
Technically the pilot did not drop the bomb, that would be the work of the bombardier. But that is just picking at details.
I don't believe the pacifist stance that he is advocating would do much good in today's world. In modern warfare, there is no way to communicate with an enemy other than through diplomatic negotiations and people do not resort to violence when they feel they have any other options. Thus once someone starts fighting with modern weapons you really only have the choice of standing there and getting mowed down by the enemy or fighting back. Since loving someone when you are dead is rather difficult, I'd say that the only realistic option is to fight back, win some respect from them for fighting back well and then loving on the enemy. I believe that Christians have a right to self defense as much as anyone. Also, if we are so out of line with God's will then why hasn't he bothered to change more people's minds and hearts? If we don't believe that he has the power to alter our thoughts and feelings then why would we follow him, and if we do believe it then why don't we believe that he would be changing the hearts of more people?
The US is currently engaged in a war where we are trying to stabilize a country and prevent a civil war after removing a man who had no qualms about murdering his own people or raping and killing people of other countries. We are also engaged in a war against a group of people who hates us and wants us dead for no reason other than that we don't proclaim faith in their God.
@mrcolorful@xanga - Several good points!
There is no easy answer to this question-- if there was, we wouldn't need to ask it.
However, I think Zabelka overstates his case. He has the right conclusion but the wrong example. Yes, violence shouldn't be instigated by Christians, and we have much in that regard to be remorseful about (the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.) But this particular act of violence wasn't instigated by the church-- not a priest, not a congregation, not an ecumenical council, not even the Pope. As Romans_837 correctly noted, it was the President of the U.S., acting not as a Christian minister but as the head of state and Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, who authorized the use of the Bomb.
Maybe the church could have protested more strongly, but ultimately it wasn't their decision to make, precisely because the church does not have the kind of political power anymore that brought about the Crusades. We can't feel guilty about a decision that was made outside of our power.
As the Bible states in Romans 13:4, the government has the "power of the sword" to legitimately exercise on people who break the law. Whether the Bomb was the right weapon to use in this situation is a question we should all debate for years to come. However, it's not a religious question-- it's a political and ethical question. Of course our religion should affect our political and ethical views, but ultimately it's a matter of conscience.
Yes.
I found it disheartening how many believers posting on this issue who disagree began to talk about "Well, I believe..."
Sometimes it doesn't matter what we believe. Sometimes we need to remember that some gray areas were never meant to be gray.
Further, and this might easily offend some, but to hell(literally) with what we believe.
What did Jesus teach?
If he taught that we should love our enemies, then the church should stop trying to justify any nation's decision for war.
How can someone look at what Jesus taught and still believe it to be a gray area?
Um... the A bomb was designed by atheist scientists the government that ordered the dropping thereof was no representative of any religion. That catholic pilot is not a representative of the church... he's carrying out his duty to his country and following orders. I think it's twisted to say the church has any responsibility for that.
There are many different churches and denominations across America with their own systems of belief but I've never seen one declare war throughout the entire history of our nation which is more than can be said for nearly every other world power today. And though our modern church may have derived out of roman catholicism in spite of it's atrocities, I don't see how today our church is anything like the spanish inquisition or the crusades of old, and the church today has no power in america to declare war or slaughter.
Zoom out and get a look at the big picture before you go accusing the Bride of Christ of slaughter. That's a serious accusation... while America may have engaged in brutal and pointless wars even at times, the church need not be involved in any of that.
I find the idea of mass-slaughter repugnant even in a time of war, but I find the idea that using nuclear weapons on civillians is somehow worse if some of them are nuns repugnant as well.
People are people.
Catholics were killing catholics, that's what made it so egregious? How about human beings killing human beings. Is it somehow worse to kill catholics than it is to kill muslims or hindus? To bring the religion of the victims up at all is an insult to the value of human lives, and it brings with it the implication that if you were a non-catholic or a non-christian in hiroshima somehow your life and death counted a little less.
And by the way, the US used the bomb to end the war before the nazis developed it, which they were very close to doing. They also ended a war where the nazis were sending children out in front of the soldiers to take up enemy bullets.
Oh...and no, Christians don't have a right to self-defense. Otherwise, the disciples would not have been martyred.
Jesus' teachings were the relinquishment of our right to self-defense or overall self-entitlement.
To be a believer is the complete sacrifice of self. No rights. We were bought with a price, we are no longer our own.
@captain_awesome__o@xanga - The bomb was designed by "atheist scientists"?
Well then credit atheists with getting the bomb before the nazis did.
@Andy - I believe in selflessness, but not debasement.
@Andy - Loving enemies and war are not necessarily incompatible. I can love someone like Osama Bin Laden personally, while realizing that he ought to die for what he has done.
@agnophilo@xanga - Very good point.
@agnophilo@xanga - Oh and I do... mad props atheists scientists... even if they were christian scientists though they aren't representing the church is the point I want to make.
Mass destruction isn't fun and it seems so inhuman to be mathmatical in saying "killing these two cities will save a nation" but it's not going to happen any other way regardless of what anybody does now... I don't blame anybody because blame won't help a single soul now including mine.
@Pickwick12@xanga - The only justification for taking a human life is to save innocent lives. The only reason to kill someone like osama bin laden is to prevent further losses of life. We slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and didn't even find him. We could have put a bullet in saddam's head, or even just done nothing and about 600,000 civillians would still be alive right now, not even counting the ones that died as a result of the civil war we caused..
Some good points have been made. I just want to add one thing about the bombings in Japan. The people were warned to get out of the city, but they ignored the warning. When the second bomb was dropped, again after being warned, many people did leave and so the second bombing did not take as great a human toll. My understanding was we were putting a stop to the war the only way that seemed plausible at the time. We warned the people. To me that means our intent was not to wipe out the people of those cities, but we did want Japan to know that we meant business and they need stop their aggression.
Not that any of that answers the question.
@agnophilo@xanga - I like the points you made
@captain_awesome__o@xanga - The bible says for everything there is a purpose, and says a time to weep, a time to rejoice etc, and specifically lists "a time to kill". Because there are times when blowing someone's head off is the right thing to do. Not nearly all of the times people are killed is it remotely justified, but to end the war before the nazis developed nuclear weapons was one of those times.
If someone has a bomb and they're going to blow up a city and the only way to stop them is to shoot them in the head then shoot them in the head.
The world is so complicated that people often are forced to make these decisions. Morality is not black and white, it is shades of grey.
By the way when you claim the bomb was built by atheists (which I doubt is true, thousands upon thousands of scientists worked on it, undoubtedly of many beliefs) it sounds like a slur. Imagine if I said "jews made the bomb", how that would sound to a jewish person.