Matt Fradd
Books • Spirituality/Belief • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Pop-Cultured Catholic #5: The Atomic Bomb, Godzilla’s Debut Film, and Just War Doctrine

This week has marked 79 years since the tragic and controversial bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading up to the long awaited “Victory over Japan Day” of World War II. Given that, I figured I would delve into my favorite foreign film, 1954’s “Gojira”/“Godzilla” (the original Japanese cut). That is, while attempting to tread delicately into the sensitive subject matter which inspired it, from a Catholic perspective.

Far from the campy and escapist entertainment that many later Godzilla movies would be known for, the original 1954 film is a haunting anti-war allegory, about the horrors of nuclear warfare and other weapons of mass destruction the future might yield. To sum up the plot as briefly as possible, an ancient fire-breathing sea monster named Godzilla has been unknowingly caught in the blast of a Hydrogen bomb test. The now scarred and irradiated beast turns hostile, destroying numerous ships, terrorizing islanders, and eventually making landfall on Tokyo itself. No amount of conventional weapons like artillery and tanks can reliably repel Godzilla, and Tokyo is reduced to a burning radioactive wasteland, littered with the dead and dying. With the threat of Godzilla moving on to destroy other cities around the world, the only available solution lies in a scientist’s no-win dilemma.

One character named Dr. Daisuke Serizawa is burdened by this dilemma, having accidentally invented a new super-weapon, which is even more brutally efficient than the atomic bomb and may be the only means to kill Godzilla. Dr. Serizawa’s new weapon is barely explained, allowing it to stand in for any possible future weapon which could rival or even supersede the atomic bomb. The only clue given is that the weapon disintegrates living things around it flesh-and-all, and a crucial step of its process involves the breakdown of oxygen atoms. Given the Cold War that has begun to brew, Dr. Serizawa is terrified that the world’s regimes will seek to replicate and mass-produce his “Oxygen Destroyer”, if he reveals it. In the end, Serizawa chooses to use his weapon once and then take its secrets to his grave, by destroying all records of his research and allowing himself to die with Godzilla in the Oxygen Destroyer’s detonation. The film ends on a foreboding line, “I can't believe that Godzilla was the last of his species. If nuclear testing continues, then someday, somewhere in the world, another Godzilla may appear”.

The film’s atmosphere, spectacle, Japanese performances, and timeless messages hold up surprisingly well, and I am unashamed to say that this is one of the few movies which can still make me cry almost on command. When I revisited that film in its proper Japanese cut, while also fully understanding its subtext for the first time, it really got to me emotionally. It is one thing to simply read that people felt existential dread during the Cold War era, once the Pandora’s Box of nuclear warfare has been forever opened. It is another to actually see a work of art, which effectively conveys what that dread must have felt like, especially from the perspective of civilians who witnessed and experienced its devastating power firsthand. This kaiju monster flick puts more focus on the civilian tragedies, such as one scene of a mother facing certain death and telling the children in her arms that they will all be joining their father soon. What especially gets me a lot are its scenes which show the aftermath of Tokyo‘s destruction, the hospitals overflowing with Godzilla’s victims (including irradiated children and their dead parents), and the choir of schoolgirls singing a “Prayer for Peace”. The first two evoke much of the imagery surrounding Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s aftermath, and the third is what finally persuades Dr. Serizawa to use his weapon. Godzilla’s fury and nigh-invulnerability echo the devastation of a nuclear attack and a conventional army’s inability to protect against it. And Serizawa’s dilemma illustrates how simply having our own weapons of mass destruction to retaliate with is not enough to truly ensure peace. Paragraph #2315 of the Catechism even makes this very point.

If we as Catholics are to look back and morally evaluate the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus look onwards to hypothetical future uses of such weapons, it may help to first consult Catholicism’s doctrines of Just War. Paragraph #2309 of the Catechism outlines four requirements for the entering of a war to be just, one of which is that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition”. Onwards, “The Church and human reason assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflicts. ‘The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.’ Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Practices deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes”. In other words, besides having just grounds to declare a war, every individual act committed during said war must be morally sound and attempt to distinguish between threats and non-threats. Even if one’s actions and intents are much better compared to the enemy’s atrocities, God’s law is still the standard to abide by.

I will attempt to relay some reasons why the Catholic Church’s consensus nowadays is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified acts (while also being fair by acknowledging at least two arguments from the opposing viewpoint afterwards). Given the importance of distinguishing combatants and civilians, plus the intrinsically evil nature of murdering innocents, many apologists like Trent Horn have argued that the atomic bombings are a prime example of seeking a good end through evil means. They appear to have helped end the war sooner, seemingly leading to a lower number of American and Japanese deaths. However, those bombings were not aimed at strictly military targets. And if the method of ending the war is specifically contingent on the deaths of civilians (versus some civilians dying as an unwanted byproduct), then it sets a harmful precedent for the sanctity of innocent life and arguably becomes tantamount to terrorism. This observation seems to have influenced the Catechism’s Paragraph #2314, “‘Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.’ A danger of modem warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes…”.

However, there are complicating circumstances to acknowledge, which may encourage us to harbor some understanding and mercy towards our forefathers, even if we find their actions to be mistaken and seek to not repeat them. Obviously, the Japanese military during WWII was infamous for idolizing Emperor Hirohito like a god, refusing to surrender, and preferring to die for their government in the name of honor. Besides the notorious kamikaze tactics, there was even a time when Hirohito did finally choose surrender, and one Japanese faction responded by attempting a coup to continue the war. It has been argued that Hirohito’s cultish hold extended to many civilians as well, who may have been willing to join in fighting American troops. If so, then perhaps it made the line between “Japanese civilians” and “Japanese combatants” appear blurrier in the eyes of America’s leaders. Though, that still does not warrant assuming all Japanese civilians are now enemies. Due to the earlier evangelization of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, for example, there was even a Catholic population in Nagasaki leading up to its bombing. Also, it is commonly brought up that some leaflets were reportedly dropped in those cities, warning people of the incoming attacks. Small as it may be, people have cited that as an attempt to at least reduce the death tolls. Other factors include similarly questionable tactics still being normalized for the time, like carpet bombing Berlin or firebombing Tokyo. Not to mention the conflicting evaluations over how many American troops were projected to die in a conventional invasion, whether Japan might have surrendered without Nagasaki’s bombing, whether the threat of Russia’s invasion could have made Hirohito surrender to America independently of the atomic bombings altogether, etc. These complicating factors, combined with someone lacking the benefit of hindsight, can contribute to the right choice being less easy to recognize and choose in the immediate time.

To end this analysis, I find the original 1954 Godzilla film to be a masterpiece, whose quality and commentary have not been matched until last year’s “Godzilla Minus One”. In each their own ways, both of these films by Toho are a reminder of how our responsibility to wage war ethically and value human life on all sides has only grown, with the new arsenals we have today. And given the current events unfolding, the world could still use another global “Prayer for Peace”.

For anyone who may want even more info, I would like to share some links to this really neat YouTube essay on the 1954 film by Steve Reviews, Apologist Trent Horn’s commentary on whether the atomic bombings were justified, the 1954 Godzilla film’s full Japanese cut on YouTube for free (for anyone using a desktop), two clips from the film, and two recordings of the “Prayer for Peace” soundtrack I love.

“Steve Reviews: Godzilla 1954 (The Original)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwMgj8I3b2Y

Trent Horn’s “Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings War Crimes?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6amuetZv-eM

The Full Japanese Cut of Godzilla 1954 on YouTube For Free (Requires Desktop Device)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn-Wg1NU32I

Short Segment of Godzilla’s Rampage in Tokyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNYWCH-fJw

Back-to-Back Clips of the Distressed Mother, Ruined Tokyo, and Overflowing Hospitals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDDf7bnj_KM

Akira Ifukube’s “Prayer For Peace” (Original Recording for the Film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njDSd8e6o70

“Prayer For Peace” (Kaoru Wanda’s Higher Quality Re-Recording With Added English Translations)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SowvXSmiIXo

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Spiritual Direction - Lessons Learned at SEEK - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was at SEEK in DC this past week. As is my tradition, I got hilariously sick and managed to learn some sweet lessons along the way : )

00:21:44
January 02, 2025
Studio Update Video
00:01:50
December 30, 2024
Quick short update
00:02:09
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Ryder Larson, a 16 year old who killed himself this morning. Please also pray for my nephew Pacer, Ryder has been his best friend since they were little and Pacer, plus the whole Rogers family, are very hurt by this. Ryder was LDS, so likely doesn't have people praying for him now.

Broken Catholic Man Needs Help. Today I reached an emotional and godless breaking point. I got angry at my wife, yelled at her, and our four kids between the ages of three and fifteen witnessed it. It was not quick or brief, but pervasive and prideful. It has been four hours since the tirade on my part and my wife and I are feeling awkward talking to each other. This does not happen more than once a year, and I want to effect change. Looking for prayers, and references to anger management books, teachings and even counseling with a Catholic foundation.

January 10, 2025
Studio update

Working away on the new studio. First step, covering up all these beautiful windows 😭

January 03, 2025
post photo preview
Did the Early Church Recognize the Pope’s Authority? A Socratic Dialogue You Can’t Ignore

Below is an imagined Socratic dialogue between a Catholic (Leo) and a Protestant (Martin). It is not intended to be an exhaustive argument but rather to help Catholics see that there is strong Patristic evidence for the early Church's belief in the authority of the Pope.

Special thanks to Madeline McCourt for her assistance in editing this article.

 


 

Martin: I’ve heard it said that the early Church gave unique authority to the Bishop of Rome, but honestly, I just don’t see it. To me, it seems like a later development rather than something the early Christians actually believed.

Leo: That’s an understandable concern, and one I’ve heard before. But if we take an honest look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, they seem to say something very different. Let’s start with Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote around A.D. 110 and called the Church of Rome the one that “holds the presidency.” Doesn’t that suggest a kind of leadership role?

Martin: Not necessarily. When Ignatius says that Rome “holds the presidency,” he could be referring to its importance as the capital of the empire, not as some kind of spiritual authority.

Leo: That’s an interesting point, but Ignatius doesn’t frame it that way. He’s writing to a church, not the emperor or the civic authorities. And he specifically praises the Roman Church for its spiritual character, saying it’s “worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing.” Moreover, he commends them for teaching others and instructing the faithful. That’s not a description of political power—it’s spiritual authority (Letter to the Romans 1:1, 3:1).

Martin: Even so, Ignatius doesn’t explicitly say that the Roman Church has authority over other churches. He’s being respectful, but respect isn’t the same as submission.

Leo: Fair enough, but let’s consider Pope Clement I. Around A.D. 80, he wrote to the church in Corinth to address a serious dispute. He doesn’t just offer advice—he commands them to reinstate their leaders and warns them that disobedience to his letter would put them in “no small danger.” Clement even claims to be speaking “through the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63). Why would a bishop in Rome have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a church in Greece unless there was an acknowledged authority?

Martin: Maybe Corinth respected Clement’s wisdom, but that doesn’t mean they recognized him as having jurisdiction over them. He could have been acting as a wise elder, not as a pope.

Leo: That’s possible, but Clement’s tone doesn’t suggest he’s merely offering advice. He writes as someone with the authority to settle the matter definitively. And we see this pattern again with later bishops of Rome. Take Pope Victor, who excommunicated the churches in Asia Minor over the date of Easter. Other bishops appealed for peace, but they didn’t deny that Victor had the authority to make such a decision (Eusebius, Church History 5:23:1–24:11). If the early Church didn’t recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, why didn’t they challenge his right to excommunicate?

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
December 14, 2024
post photo preview
13 Rules for the Spiritual Life by St. John of the Cross

While reading the Mass readings in my Magnificat this evening, I came across a beautiful excerpt from St. John of the Cross. I won’t share the entire passage, as writing it out would take some time, but it’s the kind of text that reads like a series of aphorisms. The only thing I’ve added are the numbers, to present his words more clearly.

St. John of the Cross, pray for us.

  1. The further you withdraw from earthly things the closer you approach heavenly things.

  2. Whoever knows how to die in all will have life in all.

  3. Abandon evil, do good, and seek peace.

  4. Anyone who complains or grumbles is not perfect, nor even a good Christian.

  5. The humble are those who hide in their own nothingness and know how to abandon themselves to God.

  6. If you desire to be perfect, sell your will, give it to the poor in spirit.

  7. Those who trust in themselves are worse than the devil.

  8. Those who do not love their neighbor abhor God.

  9. Anyone who does things lukewarmly is close to falling.

  10. Whoever flees prayer flees all that is good.

  11. Conquering the tongue is better than fasting on bread and water.

  12. Suffering for Gopd is better than working miracles.

  13. As for trials, the more the better. What does anyone know who doesn’t know how to suffer for Christ.

May the wisdom of St. John of the Cross inspire us to strive for holiness and draw closer to Christ, following his example of humility, prayer, and trust in God. Which of his insights struck you the most?

Read full Article
December 12, 2024
post photo preview
Mother of God? A Socratic Conversation on Mary’s Role in Salvation

Morning, all.

Today I’ll attempt a socratic dialogue on Mary as Theotokos, or "Mother of God."

James is the Protestant, Thomas is the Catholic.

 


 

James: Thomas, I gotta say, I don’t get how you can call Mary the “Mother of God.”

Thomas: Alright?

James: I mean, how can a finite human being possibly be the mother of the infinite God? It doesn’t make sense—unless you’re elevating Mary to some sort of divine status.

Thomas: Well, let me ask you: do you agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus?

James: Obviously, yes.

Thomas: And do you agree that Jesus is God?

James: Of course. He’s fully God and fully man.

Thomas: Then logically, Mary is the Mother of God. She isn’t the mother of His divine nature—that’s eternal and uncreated, which I think is where you’re getting stuck. But she is the mother of Jesus, the one person who is both fully God and fully man. The logic is simple and unavoidable:

  1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

  2. Jesus is God.

  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

James: I don’t know… it feels like another invention by the Church to give Mary too much attention. And it’s nowhere in Scripture.

Thomas: True, the title “Mother of God” isn’t explicitly in Scripture, but neither are terms like “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” or even “Bible.” The title is a theological conclusion drawn from Scripture, not something made up later. Take Luke 1:43, for instance. Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” In the context of Luke’s Gospel, “Lord” is clearly a title for God.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals