THE H-BOMB

Soft-Headed or Soft-Hearted?
He gives us a list of Catholic authorities who are supposed to favour such a position. It is an alltoo-familiar list, and it is time somebody examined it.
Two of the names are of priests in good standing but not holding (as far as I know) any responsible pastoral or teaching position in the Church. Having read large quantities of their writings I would respectfully call them holy eccentrics.
The rest of the living writers named are responsible and careful writers who (whenever I have seen their actual words) seem to occupy the same position as I am trying to uphold in these letters.
Archbishop McNicholas, OP.. of Cincinnati, dead these many years. made a courageous stand against the American militarists of his day, but I never heard that he worked out any considered overall doctrine about the use of force.
Mgr. (now Cardinel) Ottaviani's short article was written in 1947. What it disallowed was that any country should start a war. by way of vindicating some just claim against another. This was allowed by the older theologians, but on this point (said Mgr. Ottaviani. and surely he was right) their teaching is obsolete in the conditions of today. He expressly allowed the waging of defensive war, though on the conditions for this he was rather stringent, as any Italian who loved his country might well be in 1947. with the memory of Mussolini's adventures fresh in mind, and with America alone possessing the atom-both.
He said it was for the Government to judge the chances of success in a defensive war (which implies that a Government can count on its citizens answering the call). If a Government was going to wart a war (he said) its citizens should rise up and overthrow it. To cite Cardinal Ottaviani on behalf of "Christian pacifists", or even on behalf of C.O.'s against all military service today. is utterly ludicrous. The expression 'War is to be altogether forbidden" was, as far as I can make out, only the headline given to the article, meaning altogether forbidden as an instrument of policy.
0. T. Smith also demands that
should show how the "Christianpacifists" are mis-reading the Gospels, Some years ago I tried to do this in a pamphlet (now out of print) which I think 0. T. Smith must be acquainted with. For understandable reasons the Catholic "party-line" (so to speak) has been reluctant to have this tonic discussed, but it ought to he discussed, otherwise "Christianpacifists" think they have proved their case by default But it cannot be discussed in a paragraph or two. since it involves not only a consideration of all Our Lord's relevant sayings. but Mao some consideration of what we mean (or rather what He meant) by loving. The theologians should have come to our rescue. T suppose. but as It is a burning goestion they would naturally leave it alone So if any editor would provide the space, T would do my best. humbly. hut not diffidently. to show where and how the "Christian-nacifist" is misreading the comets.
Turn we (as good Monsignor Knox would say) to Reverend T.. Donnelly. S.J (How heInful is this soothing use of rhyme. when neople raise the same old points *he iimnteenth time!) •
Such views as Fr Donnelly exeresses were more common when only the West had nuclear bombs. Now there is "thermo-nticlear stalemate". and even people like Field-Marshal Montgomery or the Defence Correspondent of the Times are savine that these weenons have no military purpose
now and will never he used except in the one case of retaliation. For this (apparently) a small stock of H-bombs will be quite enough. To be able to threaten the destruction of ten Russian cities is supposed to be sufficient deterrent. So I fear that Fr. Donnelly's cheerful vision of destroying whole divisions in the field, or even whole fleets at sea, is ten years behind the times.
My guess is that in Fr. Donnelly's mind there is no particular difference between Hbombs and A-bombs. The difference is that A-bombs destroy everything within a two-mile radius, while H-bombs cover a twelve-mile-or-more radius and also kill over much larger area by uncontrollable fall-out. On our small crowded planet the extra ten-mile radius means quite a lot. The targets mentioned by Fr. Donnelly-a division in the field, or a fleet at sea. or one might add an Arctic base-could all be dealt with by an A-bomb, so there would be no justification (even on Fr. Donnelly's principles) for letting loose the extra superfluous and indiscriminate destruction of an H-bomb. It would he what theologians call "disproportionate" I have always admitted that legitimate targets for A-bombs could be imagined. However, one must also say that for generals and Governments the possession even of A-bombs is a rather dangerous occasion of sin: they do not know the right use of them, in fact they intend the wrong use. But for H-bombs as hitherto understood there can be no right
1.1Se.
Having said this, I must add that the Tablet of October 5 printed a letter from Prof. P. E. Hodgson asserting that H-bombs are now being made in baby-sizes "matched to their target" and quite clean from fall-out. Who am I to question this? But nobody else-not even the Field-Marshals and such-seems to have heard of it, and it does seem odd that it should first be announced in the Tablet. If it is true. it would mean that H-bombs need no longer be weapons of indiscriminate massdestruction, But indiscriminate mass-destruction, and the use of weapons which have no other effect, would still be against God's eternal law.
For people like me do Insist on dragging the Name of God into this business. and Fr, Donnelly can say what he likes about being soft-hearted. Since it is apparently a choice between being softhearted and soft-headed, we must perhaps remain each in our differing camps until some pushbutton general blows us both. along with a few million other well-meaning people into another and better world.
in the meantime, for some of your readers this correspondence may have entertainment value. but for me it has immediate practical relevance to what T may say from the altar next Sunday or in my next book if any. Do I have to revise my teaching about the fourth and fifth commandments (which. whether right or wrong, is certainly the traditional teaching) to accord either with "Christian• pacifists" or else with H-bomb enthusinsts? Do T have to stop saving that men have a duty of military service to their country when called on? Or must I heein to sav that Catholics should imitate Hitler's SS me i who obeyed every order however horrible. and that indiscriminate massacre is now in a good cause? There seems to be no reason in favour of these changes, and every possible reason against. and in this matter. as long as I have priestly faculties. I hope and intend to stick to the teachine that is traditional in the Ch urch.
(Canon) F. H. Drinkwater 27 Temple Street, I.ower Gornal. Dudley.