Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on war and the principle of
the Unjust Aggressor[1].
Simply, humans have a natural right to defend themselves, especially against an
unjust aggressor. First is the aggressor, namely someone attempting to harm the
individual. Second, is the unjust, namely the attempt has no basis in what
would fall in the norms of just acts.
The current Bishop or Rome has recently stated:
The Hibakusha, the survivors of the atomic bombs dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are among those who currently keep alive the flame
of collective conscience, bearing witness to succeeding generations to the
horror of what happened in August 1945 and the unspeakable sufferings that have
continued to the present time. Their testimony awakens and preserves the memory
of the victims, so that the conscience of humanity may rise up in the face of
every desire for dominance and destruction. “We cannot allow present and future
generations to lose the memory of what happened here. It is a memory that
ensures and encourages the building of a more fair and fraternal future”
Unfortunately, the Bishop labels as victims the people who
attacked without warning, massacred millions in China, Korea, the Philippines,
and the Malay Peninsula and elsewhere. My uncle, awarded a Distinguished
Service Cross, fought in Okinawa and saw the suicidal attacks against the
American forces, killing tens of thousands in that battle. My father sat off
shore near Saipan watching the suicidal attacks against the landing Marines. At
what point does the Unjust Aggressor be considered.
The Bishop has previously stated in his visit:
This place makes us deeply aware of the pain and horror
that we human beings are capable of inflicting upon one another. The damaged
cross and statue of Our Lady recently discovered in the Cathedral of Nagasaki
remind us once more of the unspeakable horror suffered in the flesh by the
victims of the bombing and their families. One of the deepest longings of the
human heart is for security, peace and stability. The possession of nuclear and
other weapons of mass destruction is not the answer to this desire; indeed they
seem always to thwart it. Our world is marked by a perverse dichotomy that
tries to defend and ensure stability and peace through a false sense of
security sustained by a mentality of fear and mistrust, one that ends up
poisoning relationships between peoples and obstructing any form of dialogue. Peace
and international stability are incompatible with attempts to build upon the
fear of mutual destruction or the threat of total annihilation. They can be
achieved only on the basis of a global ethic of solidarity and cooperation in
the service of a future shaped by interdependence and shared responsibility in
the whole human family of today and tomorrow. Here in this city which witnessed
the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of a nuclear
attack, our attempts to speak out against the arms race will never be enough.
The arms race wastes precious resources that could be better used to benefit
the integral development of peoples and to protect the natural environment. In
a world where millions of children and families live in inhumane conditions,
the money that is squandered and the fortunes made through the manufacture,
upgrading, maintenance and sale of ever more destructive weapons, are an
affront crying out to heaven.
Strangely it was in Nagasaki that Jesuits were slaughtered
for their faith. The use of those weapons saved millions more. Again, all one
has to do is examine Okinawa. Consider that a thousand-fold as the invasion of
the main islands were to occur. Historic revisionism is all too common, but
moral revisionism has putatively more serious effects. War is brutal, bloody,
and contains many moral conflicts. Yet saving lives in war often costs lives
and relying on the principle of Unjust Aggression is essential.
Having spent time on Nuclear Weapons treaty negotiations and
having lived amongst what were the putative enemy with such weapons, both
looked towards a safe existence for their children and grandchildren. Both
sides had become to understand the massive self-immolation of Hydrogen bombs.
Their use would obliterate mankind at a minimum. Most likely that is why
neither side ever used them despite the cumbersome and clumsy handling of such
weapons of mass destruction.
Yet setting blame and moral judgment on the use in 1945 is in
itself a revisionist assessment that lacks any basis in fact. The United States
lost well over 500,000 of its forces, its people, in the War, Russia lost
millions, and other nations likewise. The intent and the result was the
prevention of continued mass destruction.
However, proliferation of such weapons into the hands of those
with no moral compass presents the greatest challenge. Perhaps that is where
the emphasis should lie.
As for Saint Francis, and as one who spent some period studying
in his shadow, Obedience must follow one's own guidance, one's understanding of
the law, and one's own moral choice. Saint Francis saw Obedience as
subservient, Poverty essential.
References
Francis, Bishop of Rome, Peace As A Journey Of Hope:
Dialogue, Reconciliation And Ecological Conversion http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/peace/documents/papa-francesco_20191208_messaggio-53giornatamondiale-pace2020.html
, Jan 1, 2020
Francis, Bishop of Rome, Address Of The Holy Father On
Nuclear Weapons, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/november/documents/papa-francesco_20191124_messaggio-arminucleari-nagasaki.html
24 November 2019
[1] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
This details the Thomistic argument as well as the alleged Catholic belief
schema.
Posts
