tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post1248436346155674869..comments2024-03-28T16:23:19.433-04:00Comments on southern orders: THE CATHOLIC "MOMENT" OF THE 1980'S IN THE USA--FROM THE TOAST OF THE TOWN FOR LIBERALS TO "TOAST" AND HOW HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF TODAY WITH THE 1970'S MENTALITY RETURNING TO THE CHURCH BUT THIS TIME ON THE UNIVERSAL LEVELFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-89753579604338221952018-07-29T10:49:40.995-04:002018-07-29T10:49:40.995-04:00Anonymous
Firstly, possession does not necessaril...Anonymous<br /><br />Firstly, possession does not necessarily presume intention. As I pointed out earlier, deterrence still works even if the intention is lacking, since a potential aggressor cannot be sure of this. <br /><br />Secondly, if you assume that possession of nuclear weapons is immoral, who bears the moral guilt? President Truman? The scientists (American, British, Canadian) who worked on the Manhattan project? They could have refused to get involved and let Hitler get the A-Bomb first, no doubt an impeccably moral stance, but one which would have had immeasurably evil consequences.<br /><br />Thirdly, since you live in a country which has possessed nuclear weapons since 1945, and sees them as essential to its security, who exactly is being gravely immoral? Your own government, democratically elected? You yourself, who no doubt subscribe to the idea of government 'by the people'? <br /><br />Perhaps you might assuage your conscience by going to live in Belgium, a country which has no nuclear weapons but permits the euthanasia of children.<br /><br /><br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-90943113810205538742018-07-28T19:37:01.009-04:002018-07-28T19:37:01.009-04:00Is Anonymous (11.38) saying that the possession of...Is Anonymous (11.38) saying that the possession of nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes is intrinsically immoral?<br /><br />Yes, because poessesing them necessarily include the intention to kill non-combatants.<br /><br />The intention to kill the innocent is always gravely immoral. No, it does not require the ACT of killing the innocent to be gravely immoral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-46754429228927882632018-07-28T07:17:10.663-04:002018-07-28T07:17:10.663-04:00My late uncle flew with RAF Bomber Command in the ...My late uncle flew with RAF Bomber Command in the last war (out of a total of 125,000 aircrew, 55,573 were killed). He was shot down but survived, ending the war as a PoW. He maintained that at pre-op briefings the military value of the target was always stressed. However, we know that one of the aims of strategic bombing was to destroy civilian morale. In 1939 the concept was in its infancy, as was atomic warfare in 1945, and moral evaluation tends to lag behind technology, particularly when you are engaged in a war of national survival. My uncle never believed he was complicit in an evil act.<br /><br />In 1971 I had the privilege of meeting Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC, a war hero who had been one of the two British observers at the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. After the war he became a devout Catholic and founded the Cheshire Homes for the disabled, for which he was made a life peer. His cause for sainthood has been opened.<br /><br />Cheshire was a strong supporter of nuclear deterrence as a means of preventing war and his arguments are worth reading. He thought that the moral dilemma posed by the existence of nuclear weapons could not be resolved by using existing Just War principles; that the Church was 'perplexed' by the issue and needed to arrive at a doctrine of Just Deterrence, in line, of course, with tradition. This was in 1985; a long article in Arms Control by Gerard Powers (May 2015) shows the confusion has not abated.<br /><br />Is Anonymous (11.38) saying that the possession of nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes is intrinsically immoral? That Catholics must support unilateral disarmament? Throwing up quotations without coming to any conclusions is not really helpful.<br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54457865285407244612018-07-28T06:08:39.559-04:002018-07-28T06:08:39.559-04:00"There are many points about Catholic praxis ..."There are many points about Catholic praxis that good Catholics can disagree on."<br /><br />Would that include the Church's teaching on targeting non-combatants during war?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-36946746197236431772018-07-27T19:17:11.279-04:002018-07-27T19:17:11.279-04:00Anonymous:
I have been watching this thread for s...Anonymous:<br /><br />I have been watching this thread for several days. Anyone older than 30 with a normal MMPI score can tell that you are far more interesting in "winning" some ephemeral victory, having the last word or just trying to tell some people off. It's cringe-inducing and RCG was trying to politely tell you to give it a rest, but you didn't get the hint. There are many points about Catholic praxis that good Catholics can disagree on. That's just the way it is. If you need to tell the rest of us how wrong we are or proclaim our damnation, I would gently suggest you find a different forum.The OTHER Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1245318652662322032018-07-27T11:38:30.521-04:002018-07-27T11:38:30.521-04:00"Apart from those civilians who are forcibly ..."Apart from those civilians who are forcibly conscripted into the military, the rest of the civilian population is mobilized in support of the war effort."<br /><br />Non-combatants cannot be targeted morally. A "mobilized civilian population" remains in the non-combatant category and are, morally, out of bounds for attack.<br /><br />"The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. "If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]" However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:<br /><br />- attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;<br /><br />- genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities; <br /><br />- indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.<br /><br />Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2467811629630020172018-07-27T08:31:32.594-04:002018-07-27T08:31:32.594-04:00Using the two world wars of the 20th century as re...Using the two world wars of the 20th century as representative of modern warfare, an individual officer or soldier may obey his moral scruples and the Geneva Convention by distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants, but in a wider context the distinction between military and civilian personnel is by no means clear-cut. Apart from those civilians who are forcibly conscripted into the military, the rest of the civilian population is mobilized in support of the war effort.<br /><br />If destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war is a legitimate war aim, then bombing a munitions factory is legitimate, and it is a short step from that to 'dehousing' the workers (to use Lord Cherwell's notorious euphemism). And at a time when night-time precision bombing was not possible, high levels of collateral damage could not be avoided, even if this was an aim (which it wasn't).<br /><br />In July 1943 the destruction of Hamburg in a firestorm killed 40,000 men, women and children, and it was replicated in other German cities (Würzburg was destroyed in March 1945 more or less for the hell of it, since there was no strategic rationale and the war was all but over). Churchill seems to have had some moral doubts by this stage, but earlier in the war the only churchman who consistently opposed area bombing was the bishop of Chichester, George Bell.<br /><br />In the First World War, the British blockade of Germany caused widespread malnutrition and even starvation among civilians, and a resulting collapse in morale, something that WW2 area bombing failed to achieve. It undoubtedly shortened the war, but it was essentially economic warfare directed primarily at the civil population.<br /><br />Weapons themselves are morally neutral. 1300 bombers en route to flatten an undefended city packed with refugees (Dresden, February 1945) is less defensible in moral terms than possession of nuclear weapons with the aim of preserving peace between the Great Powers.<br /><br />Multilateral step-by-step nuclear disarmament sounds fine in principle, but eventually a stage is reached where holdings by the two main potential adversaries are so low as to cause an imbalance which might give one or the other a first-strike capability. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-65214102896326404622018-07-27T08:19:07.992-04:002018-07-27T08:19:07.992-04:00Keep widening your phylacteries.
Remember, Too, M...Keep widening your phylacteries.<br /><br />Remember, Too, Matthew 25:41: <br /><br />"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-62803377116379009252018-07-27T07:24:08.752-04:002018-07-27T07:24:08.752-04:00Too - Do you also reject the Church's teaching...Too - Do you also reject the Church's teaching on the killing of Innocents?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-17825059250034255302018-07-27T00:27:24.712-04:002018-07-27T00:27:24.712-04:00RCG:
Remember Proverbs 18:2.
They love to troll ...RCG:<br /><br />Remember Proverbs 18:2.<br /><br />They love to troll the blogosphere.Too Tirednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81959947448084200112018-07-26T18:18:35.338-04:002018-07-26T18:18:35.338-04:00rcg - My "grade" is the Church's tea...rcg - My "grade" is the Church's teaching on war and the killing of innocents. I'm happy now, and will always be happy with, that grade. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87192819177143786992018-07-26T11:32:30.494-04:002018-07-26T11:32:30.494-04:00Anon, you should stop talking or you are going to ...Anon, you should stop talking or you are going to lower your grade even further. rcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131930849106490711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-55598599340077240242018-07-26T09:00:33.279-04:002018-07-26T09:00:33.279-04:00"War is a terrible thing."
Yes, it is.
..."War is a terrible thing."<br /><br />Yes, it is.<br /><br />"Innocents die."<br /><br />Yes, they do. Some are accidental. Some are intentional. The intentional killing of innocents is always gravely evil and immoral, whether that is in war or in abortion. The intention to use nuclear weapons against innocent civilian population is also gravely immoral. That is the Church's teaching.<br /><br />"If you do not want any of your innocents to die, then do not kill any of our's."<br /><br />No, the murder of innocents by an enemy does not, in any way, shape, or form, justify killing innocents by us. This is a perverse rationalization of evil. It is equivalent to "I had to abort my baby because the growth of the baby was threatening the health/life of the mother." <br /><br />"If your government attacks us and causes a lot of your innocents to die, then you should have chosen a better government."<br /><br />Same as above. An evil governments actions against us do not in any way, shape, or form justify evil actions by our government. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-89974450618473463532018-07-26T07:54:26.161-04:002018-07-26T07:54:26.161-04:00The death of civilians is terrible and the enemy m...The death of civilians is terrible and the enemy must consider that when placing the installations. The sparing of civilians is a Draconian tactic as well: if we destroy the enemy’s warmaking ability and leave a large injured civilian population to care for in the aftermath the enemy will be less able to recover the fight or must risk revolt among the survivors. <br /><br />John, the apparent disparity among the cities is probably due to the location of the target and how physically accessible it is. <br /><br />Finally, there are targets that are in sparsly populated areas but deep within the air defenses of the other country that were chosen to be struck by a single mission so that there would be minimal civilian injury and very little direct military impact. The idea is to demonstrate during the last moments before total annihilation, that we do not desire to destroy their country, its people, or military but that if we are pushed to war there is nothing they can do to stop it. That strategy, like the threat of Hell, exhibits a faith in the sainity of both sides. rcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131930849106490711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1273053943489951522018-07-26T06:41:07.542-04:002018-07-26T06:41:07.542-04:00War is a terrible thing. Innocents die. If you do ...War is a terrible thing. Innocents die. If you do not want any of your innocents to die, then do not kill any of our's. If your government attacks us and causes a lot of your innocents to die, then you should have chosen a better government. Genenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-55681182191544886262018-07-25T20:57:10.585-04:002018-07-25T20:57:10.585-04:00If a man, priest or not, cannot be alone with a wo...If a man, priest or not, cannot be alone with a woman because he cannot trust himself not to act inappropriately toward her, there's something very wrong with him.<br /><br />He's not holy, he's unbalanced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-25456823786276852282018-07-25T20:17:33.660-04:002018-07-25T20:17:33.660-04:00Also the most recently declassified target list wa...Also the most recently declassified target list was drawn up by SAC in 1956, before ICBMs had been developed and when the US had an overwhelming superiority in strategic airpower. I have been unable to find a 'US Nuclear Protocol' with an updated target list.<br /><br />I would also like to know how the 'target estimated fatalities' were arrived at. In the case of Volokolamsk it amounts to 19% of the population; in the case of Aktobe a mere 2%. Naryan (situated north of the Arctic Circle) has a fatality rate of 56%, yet Moscow, a key counterforce and countervalue target, loses marginally less than a tenth. (It has a Soviet-built ABM defensive system which was installed before the 1972 treaty and is now reckoned to be ineffective, and although the Soviets claimed 40 years ago that they had contingency plans to evacuate the city, Western analysts were sceptical).<br /><br />Finally, there is the estimate of 22,940 fatalities in Novozybkovsky. It is a rural district with a population (2010 census) of 12,415. The town of Novozybkovsk is separate. Its population is only 40,553 and it is of no strategic significance. In 1986 it was badly contaminated by fallout from the Chernobyl disaster and within 1km of the town limits there are areas still declared unsafe for human habitation. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-23383189902072020602018-07-25T17:49:28.045-04:002018-07-25T17:49:28.045-04:00Using nuclear weapons against these targets intend...Using nuclear weapons against these targets intends the death of civilians. It is not a "secondary effect." It is not "Double Effect." It is intentional.<br /><br />Intending to kill the innocent - whether in abortion or in war - is always a grave sin. One may never choose to sin gravely, making the excuse, "Oh, well, we had to do it to decrease the ability of our enemy to continue its campaign."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-26802359915303081982018-07-25T17:18:39.281-04:002018-07-25T17:18:39.281-04:00Anonymous,
You are also attempting to put words ...Anonymous, <br /><br />You are also attempting to put words in my mouth.<br /><br />Some of the holiest priests I've ever known have told me that they dare not open themselves up to certain temptations, like being alone with a woman, as they would not trust themselves. And I did not say that ALL men are dogs, but too many are.<br /><br />I congratulate you on being holier and better than the rest of us. What is more chilling to me is playing fast and loose with morality and risking Hell.<br /><br />Robert Kumpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10567786012498143419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81778158430622160382018-07-25T13:30:17.581-04:002018-07-25T13:30:17.581-04:00Anonymous 12:27. Those targets are selected for th...Anonymous 12:27. Those targets are selected for the military facilities embedded in them. The effort to reach and destroy a target as deep and well defended as Moscow is monumental and it would be a waste of resources to strike a location that would not cause a decrease in the ability of Russia, e.g., to continue their campaign. rcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131930849106490711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-90325387334414878152018-07-25T12:27:29.635-04:002018-07-25T12:27:29.635-04:00The intention to target civilian population center...The intention to target civilian population centers in the US Nuclear Protocol is stated.<br /><br />Among the US targets:<br />Target Estimated Fatalities<br />Volokolamsk, Russia 4,520<br />Aktobe, Kazakhstan 8,090<br />Naryan, Russia 12,110<br />Novozybkovsky Russia 22,940<br />Moskva, Russia 1,179,270<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-40885565541647499042018-07-25T08:49:48.148-04:002018-07-25T08:49:48.148-04:00"However, women have overlooked their tremend..."However, women have overlooked their tremendous power to say "no"."<br /><br />Have men "overlooked" their power to say "I won't."?<br /><br />"50 years ago, no decent woman would ever stand for the behavior men inflict upon women today,..."<br /><br />50 years ago no decent man would ever have initiated such behavior.<br /><br />"Yes, I DO think the bimbosity and trashiness of some women LEAD some men to sin,...<br /><br />A woman is dressed in an attractive way. She is raped by a stranger on her way home.<br />Is SHE to blame because her attractiveness LED this man to rape her?<br /><br />"What you neglect to realize is that such power was necessary because MEN are such dogs when left unchecked!"<br /><br />I don't know what kind of men you were raised by or with, or what kind of men you associate with now, but none of the men I know are "dogs." I, a man, do not rely on anyone else to keep me "in check." Men have just as much control over their libido as women. To hear someone say that women are to blame for the behavior of "unchecked dogs" is staggeringly mind-blowing.<br /><br />I'm not reading your mind - I am reading what you post. And it is chilling.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-20390129868109067182018-07-25T07:47:46.783-04:002018-07-25T07:47:46.783-04:00To write 'If a woman loves a man, she has to b...To write 'If a woman loves a man, she has to become worthy of him &c.' would be to invite the wrath of outraged womankind. How irredeemably sexist!<br /><br />What Sheen wrote is not equivalent, since few men would be offended by it, and many would endorse it, including Goethe, who famously wrote 'Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan.'<br /><br />Regarding nuclear deterrence, I would agree with Finnis et al. that an intention to kill the innocent is morally unacceptable. But deterrence is less about intention than it is about how a potential aggressor perceives your intention. If you have no intention of using nuclear weapons in any circumstances, deterrence still works, since your adversary cannot be sure that the intention is lacking. Indeed, he may ask in all logic what is the point in your incurring the expense of maintaining a nuclear arsenal if there are no circumstances under which you would use it.<br /><br /><br /><br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3558864075570519332018-07-25T00:25:51.715-04:002018-07-25T00:25:51.715-04:00Men and women CERTAINLY share the power to set the...Men and women CERTAINLY share the power to set the moral standards of society. However, women have overlooked their tremendous power to say "no". 50 years ago, no decent woman would ever stand for the behavior men inflict upon women today, likewise, no decent parent would allow their sons to behave the way they do today either.<br /><br />I refer to a woman I do not know personally as a bimbo because of how she publicly presents herself. In fact, it's depressing to see what has happened to popular music, thanks to MTV, and to movies, thanks to our 3 second attention span. The music doesn't even matter any more--it's all just about image. The story doesn't matter any more, it's all about special effects.<br /><br />Yes, I DO think the bimbosity and trashiness of some women LEAD some men to sin, and I likewise think that the bad behavior and attitudes of men lead women to act like sex objects instead of ladies. If anything, I have expressed my disappointment with where women have gone because of the power they have pretty much abandoned. What you neglect to realize is that such power was necessary because MEN are such dogs when left unchecked!<br /><br />Please do not attempt to read my mind. Most of us fail when we try. You are no exception.Robert Kumpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10567786012498143419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3313507206446848672018-07-24T17:13:50.134-04:002018-07-24T17:13:50.134-04:00You say, "Women have tremendous power--the po...You say, "Women have tremendous power--the power to set the moral standards of society."<br /><br />Do you think that men and women share equally in setting the moral standards of society?<br /><br />You refer to a woman who you do not know, who is attending, obviously, a costume event, as a "bimbo" and as "trashy."<br /><br />Do you think that her "bimbosity" and "trashiness" cause men to sin?<br /><br />Don't men have access to the grace that can turn them from sin?<br /><br />You say "Women have the power to say no." But that "Too many women for the last couple of generations have just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, I guess so, if that's what you want." And look what we've got." And, as a result of women not saying "No" we have, in your words, "... we are, morally, as a society, a society rife with venereal diseases, unwed motherhood run rampant and absolute shamelessness."<br /><br />So, if women have all this power and responsibility to set moral standards, and if moral standards have been declining, as I agree they have, and if it is bimbos and trashy women who are causing this decline - aren't you scapegoating women, putting the blame on them? That's what it appears to me you are trying to do...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com