August 2025
Articles from Mercy:
Critical Considerations
Are we doomed to a perpetual nuclear arms race?
Karen Donahue, RSM
The world reached a grim milestone this month with the 80th anniversaries, on August 6 and 9, of the obliteration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by U.S. nuclear weapons, thus ushering in the nuclear age. In a recent article posted on the TomDispatch website, Eric Ross, organizer, educator, and PhD candidate in the history department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, raises some troubling questions: why was there so little dissent from the scientists at Los Alamos, and what does that mean for us today?
However, there was some dissent. In June 1945, a group of scientists at the University of Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory, one of several teams working on various aspects of the bomb’s development, spoke out. Led by physicist James Franck, they sent a report to Secretary of War Henry Stimson “warning of the profound political and ethical consequences of employing such a bomb without exhausting all other alternatives.” By this time, it was clear that Germany, already defeated, had not developed a nuclear weapon. The prospect of a potential German atomic bomb had been the impetus for the Manhattan Project.
These scientists understood “that the atomic bomb wasn’t just a more powerful weapon but a fundamental transformation in the nature of warfare, an instrument of annihilation.” They recognized that the use of such a destructive weapon without sufficient military justification would undermine U.S. credibility in future arms control efforts. They also “observed that the development of the bomb under conditions of extreme wartime secrecy had created an abjectly anti-democratic situation, one in which the public was denied any opportunity to deliberate on such an irrevocable and consequential decision.” Nevertheless, Ross ends on an encouraging note: he says, “This history should also remind us that the development and use of nuclear weapons was not inevitable. There were those who spoke out and a different path might well have been possible. While we cannot know exactly how events would have unfolded had dissent been amplified rather than suppressed, we can raise our own voices now to demand a safer, saner future.”
Back to top
Love and care of creation in local ecologies
Rose Marie Tresp, RSM; Institute Justice Team
I recently attended the day-long “Fourth Annual Lake James Watershed Symposium”. The Lake James watershed includes the local area in North Carolina where I live. Our area is called the Catawba River Basin; I have been a member of the Catawba Riverkeeper Organization for several years. Catawba Riverkeeper is the only non-profit, on-the-water advocate for the entire 8,900 miles of waterways in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin that provides accurate, science-based information about our water and the issues affecting it.
The Symposium was held at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics in Morganton, NC about an hour’s drive from here. Generally, the programs I attend and the work I do are either on the macrolevel of climate change, its causes and alleviation, or the focus is on the microlevel of personal and organizational practices with the mantra of reduce, reuse, and recycle. But this symposium was quite different as its focus was on the middle level of conservation research and practices. There were several short presentations on research about conserving and protecting the local ecology. One presentation was on the design of hiking trails. A bad hiking trail is one that leads to erosion and flooding. Another presentation was assessing and changing the route of streams since some streambed routes can cause more erosion and flooding. Another presentation was on the design of a local park so that heavy rains do not flood the housing development below the park. I really had never thought of these issues. I thought hiking trails just happened where it was convenient.
I also found it interesting that no one talked about or mentioned climate change. Clearly these people loved the land and volunteered in different ways to protect and conserve the land and water. Programs were designed and carried out to involve the youth in conservation. But maybe some of those attending really were not sure about climate change.
The themes of this symposium can remind us of a passage in Laudato Si’:
The entire material universe speaks of God’s love, his boundless affection for us. Soil, water, mountains: everything is, as it were, a caress of God. The history of our friendship with God is always linked to particular places which take on an intensely personal meaning; we all remember places, and revisiting those memories does us much good. Anyone who has grown up in the hills or used to sit by the spring to drink or played outdoors in the neighborhood square; going back to these places is a chance to recover something of their true selves. (84)
I am very glad that I attended this symposium; I will try to attend next year’s symposium. I learned a lot about the local ecology that I live in. I encourage everyone to seek out and support the local, non-profit conservation organizations in your area.
Back to top
Church document ahead of COP 30
Marianne Comfort; Institute Justice Team
Church leaders in the Global South are taking a strong role in the lead-up to this year’s international climate talks (COP 30) in Belem, Brazil.
Mercy Sister Rosita Sidasmed of Argentina participated in conversations that contributed to Climate Justice and the Common Home: Ecological Conversion, Transformation and Resistance to False Solutions. This document was first drafted by Church leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean, endorsed by bishop conferences in Africa and Asia, and then endorsed by the Vatican.
The document rejects the commodification of nature and extraction of minerals for renewable energy technologies as “false solutions” to the climate crisis. It instead demands that rich nations pay their “ecological debt” to countries most harmed by climate change; promotes phasing out fossil fuels and fairly taxing those who have benefited from these industries; calls for the defense of Indigenous peoples, ecosystems and impoverished communities; and recognizes climate migration as a challenge of justice and human rights. The authors invite everyone to “adopt a new lifestyle marked by joyful simplicity” that focuses on “living a productive and supportive life, in peace and harmony with our brothers and sisters and with ecosystems.” Specifically, they call for reducing unnecessary consumption and challenging military investments; fostering spiritual experiences of contemplation and love for all creation; working with scientists to respond to local, regional and global needs; encouraging food, energy and cultural projects; and promoting narratives of hope and common care.
Back to top
