Coalition for Clarity

It's torture when they do it

2012-01-26T17:25:00.000-08:00

(Cross-posted at And Sometimes Tea.)

The medical group Doctors without Borders is leaving detention facilities in Libya over allegations that they were being used to facilitate the continued torture of prisoners:

Medicins San Frontieres pulled its staff out of detention facilities in a Libyan city yesterday after witnessing more than 100 cases of torture against inmates by the revolutionaries that overthrew Col Muammar Gaddafi.

MSF said it was withdrawing staff because it was effectively keeping prisoners alive so that authorities could continue to torture them. [...]
Christopher Stokes, the General Director of MSF, said the scale of torture in two detention centres in the city of Misurata was accelerating despite repeated pleas from the organisation for mistreatment to stop.

Some of the 115 inmates among the 1,500 strong prison population that MSF staff treated after torture were beaten so badly they could not stand, had suffered kidney failure and bore signs of electric shock.

Hundreds of prisoners, many of them black Africans, also told the organisation of suffering torture.

Mr Stokes said MSF medics feared that their work could be used to sustain the process of torturing prisoners. "When you patch people up and then they get taken back to be tortured again in the same evening, you become part of the process," he said.

"We have protested and in some cases they have said they will stop but in other cases they say it happens everywhere, like Abu Ghraib. If anything, the number of cases has been accelerating."

Poor Mr. Stokes appears not to realize that it's not fair to bring up Abu Ghraib in this context. The prisoners at Abu Ghraib were only being subject to enhanced interrogation, enhanced detainment, and enhanced violation of human dignity. It's perfectly obvious that these prisoners in Libya are actually being tortured, because it's always torture when someone other than Americans is doing it.

You see, what matters is not whether rubber hoses, electric shocks, beatings, cold cells, waterboarding or some similar method is employed. What matters is whose hands are on the other end of the rubber hose, the electric switches, the sticks or rods, the climate control settings or the flood of merciless water poured out to cause controlled drownings. If those hands belong to citizens of any nation in the world aside from the United States of America, then what we're talking about is clearly torture. But if those instruments are being employed by patriotic Americans keeping America and her allies safe from terrorism, then all of a sudden we just don't quite know what we're describing. Prisoner discomfort? Enhanced interrogation? A little splash of water on the face--quite nice, actually, considering that the prisoner may still be dripping salty perspiration into open wounds from the last bout of Congressional-approved enhanced chatting with a hostile detainee he just endured...er, experienced. In any case, it's not torture, because good red-blooded patriotic Americans don't torture people.

It's amazing to me how clear it is that torture is what is being alleged and what is being described in detention centers in Libya, when nobody could quite seem to see it happening in our detention centers, under our watch. Such loyal, patriotic myopia is also quite good in noticing specks and even planks protruding from the eyes of citizens of other nations, while utterly ignoring that our straining to see these things and avoid seeing our own similar defects has made us morally blind.

Positions of The Republican candidates on torture and related issues

2012-01-09T12:32:00.001-08:00

It has been quite some time since I've posted anything on this blog; life has simply been busy, but I hope to remedy things as the 2012 election season heats up.

For today, I'd simply like to post the position of the various Republican candidates on the issue of torture/enhanced interrogation and related issues. I'm drawing my summaries from various sources, so I'll include a selection of links at the bottom of the post.

The candidates are listed in alphabetical order.

Gingrich: Has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is something America shouldn't do. Believes that Guantanamo should remain open until the terrorists disappear.

Huntsman: Opposes waterboarding; calls Guantanamo an "imperfect solution" but criticizes Obama for breaking his promise to close it.

Paul: Opposes torture and waterboarding as illegal and immoral; opposes Patriot Act; thinks Guantanamo should be closed.

Perry: Says he opposes torture but approves of enhanced interrogation which includes "any technique" used to save American lives. Supports keeping Guantanamo open.

Romney: Favors enhanced interrogation techniques and will not say whether waterboarding qualifies as such a technique. Has said Guantanamo could be doubled in size if needed.

Santorum: Voted to renew Patriot Act. Would continue using Guantanamo for terror suspects. Says that waterboarding is effective. Said John McCain didn't understand how enhanced interrogation works, that the object is to break a man so he will become cooperative.

Some sources:

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-candidates-torture-182900893.html
http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
http://jon2012.com/index.php/issues/foreign-policy-terrorism
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/06/3356005/positions-of-the-republican-candidates.html
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-21/ron-paul-on-the-glenn-beck-program-with-guest-host-judge-andrew-napolitano/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323716-503544/cain-bachmann-say-they-would-support-waterboarding/
http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55140.html

Waterboarding doesn't save lives

2011-09-13T13:44:00.001-07:00

From the Coalition for Clarity Facebook page, Sean Daily shares an article from Forbes:

It’s now widely known that claims made in previously secret memos about the efficacy of so-called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques – such as that it was from waterboarding Abu Zubaydah that the so-called “dirty bomb” plot of Jose Padilla was thwarted – are false. Padilla was arrested in May 2002, long before waterboarding began months later, and the plot was uncovered using traditional interrogation techniques.

What isn’t widely known is how the insistence of decision-makers to persist with the coercive interrogation techniques and other mistaken tactics like the outsourcing of interrogations to foreign countries – ignoring the pleas of CIA and FBI professionals in the field – cost lives too. Besides the Limburg, there were attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, and Riyadh that might have been stopped if the professionals were listened to. And if leads were followed bin Laden probably could have been found years earlier.

So not only are Enhanced Interrogation Techniques evil, but they also don't work. Who could possibly have foreseen this?

Turns out, waterboarding doesn't save lives. Torture doesn't help fight terror. Evil, once again, has shown to be ineffective as well as wrong.

Sharing some posts about the death penalty

2011-08-20T16:37:00.000-07:00

I've written two recent posts about the death penalty, in light of Governor Rick Perry's entry into the presidential race. They are here:

Death is irrevocable

and

Dead wrong: Rick Perry and the death penalty

Please feel free to comment either there or here about these posts.

Right?

2011-08-04T16:33:00.000-07:00

You've probably already seen this:

An American former military contractor who claims he was imprisoned and tortured by the US army in Iraq has been allowed by a judge to sue the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally for damages.
The man, an army veteran whose identity has been withheld, worked as a translator for the US marines in the volatile Anbar province when he was detained for nine months at Camp Cropper, a US military facility near Baghdad airport dedicated to holding "high-value" detainees.
The government says he was suspected of helping to pass classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces enter Iraq. But he was never charged with a crime, and says he never broke the law.

What happened to this man? Here are some of the allegations:

In November 2005, when he was to go on home leave, Navy Criminal Investigative Service agents questioned him about his work, refusing his requests for representation by his employer, the Marines or an attorney. The Justice Department says he was told he was suspected of helping provide classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces attempting to cross from Syria into Iraq.
He says he refused to answer questions because of concern about confidentiality, and the agents handcuffed and blindfolded him, kicked him in the back and threatened to shoot him if he tried to escape. He was then transferred to an unidentified location for three days before being flown to Camp Cropper. [...]

He claims guards tortured him by repeatedly choking him, exposing him to extreme cold and continuous artificial light, blindfolding and hooding him, waking him by banging on a door or slamming a window when he tried to sleep and blasting music into his cell at "intolerably loud volumes."

But none of that is real torture, right? And the man was suspected of collaborating with terrorists, which makes it all good, right?

Right?

Praying for Somalia

2011-07-20T21:59:00.000-07:00

I posted about this earlier tonight on my main blog, but I wanted to share it here, too:

The United Nations has declared a famine in two areas of southern Somalia as the region suffers the worst drought in more than half a century.

The UN said the humanitarian situation in southern Bakool and Lower Shabelle had deteriorated rapidly.

It is the first time that the country has seen famine in 19 years.

Meanwhile, the UN and US have said aid agencies need further safety guarantees from armed groups in Somalia to allow staff to reach those in need.

Al-Shabab, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group which controls large swathes of south and central Somalia, had imposed a ban on foreign aid agencies in its territories in 2009, but has recently allowed limited access.
An estimated 10 million people have been affected in East Africa by the worst drought in more than half a century. More than 166,000 desperate Somalis are estimated to have fled their country to neighbouring Kenya or Ethiopia.

The UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Somalia, Mark Bowden, said $300m (£186m) was needed to address the famine in the next two months.

The UK Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, said the response by many European and developed countries to the crisis in the Horn of Africa had been "derisory and dangerously inadequate".

"The fact that a famine has been declared shows just how grave the situation has become. It is time for the world to help," he said.

Read the rest here.

Catholic social justice teaching makes it clear that these are our brothers and sisters suffering so horrifically from the effects of this drought and the resulting famine. Political realities have only made the situation worse than it would otherwise be. Pope Benedict XVI has called on the nations of the world to rush to Somalia's aid.

Let us pray for the suffering, and do what we can to help.

Isn't it time to bring them home?

2011-06-06T15:08:00.000-07:00

Although this blog has tended to focus on torture (e.g. "enhanced interrogation") when discussing our wars, I think it's a good thing from time to time to reflect that the bar set for a war to be a Just War is rather high, that some of our present foreign engagements either never met that standard or no longer do, and that we're continuing to keep our service men and women in harm's way regardless of such considerations:

Five American soldiers died Monday when a barrage of rockets slammed into a base in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad — the largest, single-day loss of life for U.S. forces in Iraq in two years.

The attack follows warnings from Shiite militants backed by Iran and anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr that they would violently resist any effort to keep American troops in Iraq past their year-end deadline to go home. [...]
The five fatalities Monday were the most in a single day since May 11, 2009, when five troops died in a noncombat incident. On April 10, 2009, six U.S. troops died — five in combat in the northern city of Mosul and one north of Baghdad in a noncombat related incident.

According to an Associated Press tally, 4,459 American service members have died in Iraq since the war began in 2003.

And that doesn't include the 1,500 and counting US troops killed in Afghanistan since the start of fighting there.

Isn't it time--more than time--to bring our men and women home from Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we really need to be involved in three foreign wars at this point in history? Is there any just reason to remain in these countries and continue to put our men and women in harm's way?

A new Jay Study on clergy sexual abuse - UPDATED

2011-05-17T14:20:00.000-07:00

*UPDATE at bottom of post.*

The John Jay College of Law at CUNY has released a new study on patterns in Catholic clergy who sexually abused minors. This will add information to their impressive earlier study from 2004.

Clarity is good in every aspect of life, both inside and outside the institutions of the Church. And while our bishops have individually been hit-and-miss in being transparent and decisive, it does my heart good to know that the USCCB is putting serious time and money (about $2M) into this kind of self-examination. Call it an examination of conscience.

Lots of pixels are flashing because the study notes the "permissive culture of the '60s, '70s" as a factor in the recent scandal. I have no doubt that is true. But it is far from the only factor, and it does little good to point to a factor which is in the past and beyond our control.

More reasoned articles point out that this spike in abusive behavior had many causes, some of which were historically rooted.

Other causes are structural, and those are the ones we can actually do something about.

The Vatican is making moves in that direction, and these are welcome. But the Church is more than just a hierarchy, and the diocese is not a subsidiary of the Vatican. We cannot and should not rely on the Pope to police the bishops.

Rather, each of us - lay, cleric, or consecrated religious - has a part to play in the reform that is needed.

I don't know all the steps we need to take, but at least three come to mind immediately:

Pray - pray for ourselves, that we may grow in virtue and holiness; and pray for our clergy and other religious leaders (teachers, administrators, etc.) that they be given the grace, the wisdom, and the courage to do what is right for the Church, and especially for those most vulnerable

Learn - this study acknowledges just how complex the life of a priest can be; it may not be more difficult than a layperson's life, but it is difficult in a different way; understanding the various causes can help us spot problems as they're still in the temptation stage, or at least prevent further harm from being done

Act - not everyone is in a position to take direct action, but some of us are; we may be a friend of a priest, or may sit on the parish council; we may have the ear of the bishop; we may just be good with words; in any case, we must both support priests and other religious leaders, and also hold them accountable in both word and action

We can all of us do the first; most of us can do the second; perhaps only a few will do the third. But as members of the One Body of Christ, we all have a part to play in expelling the disease of abuse, and in bringing healing to those who are harmed.

*Update*
The New York Times raised some important questions about the study, particularly that the study defines the line between "pedophilia" (abuse of pre-pubescent children) and "ephebophilia" (abuse of pubescent children) at age 10, while the medical and psychological standard is age 13. I haven't seen a good reason for the study to draw this line where they did.

So the report raises some questions about its own validity. I don't want to dismiss the report altogether, but questions are worth asking, and need answering. This is part of the learning we all have to do.

"Torture works" isn't an argument

2011-05-16T20:10:00.001-07:00

Joshua Mercer makes the point that "torture works" isn't an argument in favor of torture, even if torture did work, which is doubtful.

Hat tip: Mark Shea, who has some comments of his own here.

When mercy seasons justice

2011-05-02T16:49:00.000-07:00

(Cross-posted at And Sometimes Tea)

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the heart of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.
-- William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

When I first learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by a United States military team, I felt...surprised. Bin Laden has been such a shadowy figure for so long that I suppose it didn't seem very real to me, to think that a military operation had been carried out successfully in such a cut and dried manner against someone who somehow seemed less than real. But there was no denying that news of his death was...good news, right?

I visited a few places--Facebook being one of them--and felt a little uneasy by the enthusiasm in some quarters for the news, especially for that enthusiasm as shown by fellow Catholics. Surely we could be glad that the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 has left this earth before committing any new crime of a comparable level without openly celebrating his killing, couldn't we?

The statement from the Vatican's spokeman seemed to strike the right note:

Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.

In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.

A far cry, this measured, reflective tone, from some other things I saw here and there on the Catholic blogosphere which seemed to rejoice in Osama bin Laden's death, and which actually credited either yesterday's celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday, or the newly Blessed Pope John Paul II, with the success of the operation in killing the terrorist mastermind. Two things come to mind: one, that yesterday was Divine Mercy Sunday, and that no one living could survive "Divine Justice Sunday" should God ever decide to hold such a day; and two, that the author of Evangelium Vitae--the Gospel of Life--might admit sorrowfully that the death of an aggressor who could not be safely captured might be necessary, but would never celebrate such a fact.

It is possible, though we will not know in this life, that Osama bin Laden was not beyond the reach of God's mercy; certainly the fact that he remained alive for so long after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 was a mercy in itself, since the increased amount of time was time for him to repent. If he did not avail himself of repentance--if he did not seek forgiveness--if he will reside for all eternity in the flames of Hell--that is not something to rejoice about, either. That fate awaits all of us who turn our backs on God and refuse to listen to Him, who spurn His repeated offers of that Divine Mercy without which none of us has any hope at all.

A few Catholic bloggers and writers have mentioned that they have prayed for bin Laden and those killed along with him (and, indeed, some of them may have been innocent of everything but relationship to an evil man, which is not always something one can do anything about). Some said such prayers came naturally; others admitted to struggling with the idea, which is perfectly understandable given the situation. It did not occur to me to pray for those killed until after I'd read those posts, but I did pray once I had read them--I prayed that the mercy I hope for myself would be extended to those who died yesterday, and that if by their own choices they were beyond the reach of redemption, that my prayers help other poor souls awaiting liberty from purgatory. It does not matter if that sort of thing doesn't come naturally to us; it only matters if there is some person for whom we would absolutely refuse to pray--because that refusal would mean real hatred, which is what would cause us actually to wish someone were in Hell and to refuse to pray that they were not beyond redemption.

It may be objected that Osama bin Laden's crimes against humanity already prove him beyond redemption. Blessed John Paul II wrote this, though, about the world's first murderer, the first man guilty of such a crime against the tiny handful of humanity then born:

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, "put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him" (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. (Evangelium Vitae, 9)

It is justice that a murderer be stopped, even if stopping him ends up demanding the use of lethal force. But it is mercy to pray for his soul and the souls of those who perished with him, and further to pray for those tempted to commit acts of violence in retaliation, that they will heed the voice of God and turn from evil. And as we pray, so we hope that others will one day pray for us; as we cry to God for mercy even upon the soul of a man whose life was characterized by great evil, so we hope that others will shout for mercy for us when our days on this earth have ended.

On the passing of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T09:29:00.000-07:00

When I heard the news on the radio last night, my immediate response was to offer prayer for the repose of his soul. If there's even the slightest chance the man is not in Hell, he needs all the help he can get.

This is, I hope, a Catholic response.

On the one hand, it is right and proper to rejoice in the defeat of one's enemy. And Osama bin Laden, by his own description, was our enemy. His actions were horrific and without excuse, and his defeat is a victory not only for the USA but for all those whom al-Qaeda targeted.

On the other, every human death is a tragedy, albeit a tragedy laced with hope, as we know from our celebrations of our Lord's resurrection. Osama bin Laden, before anything else, is a human person, and is a beloved child of God.

My prayers also go up on behalf of the team that conducted the operation. From some of President Obama's comments, it sounds as if the goal was to capture him, and that Bin Laden was killed in the course of that attempt. But the statement, "After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body," makes it sound as if bin Laden was assassinated after the fighting had finished. This would not be a morally just action, even on a battlefield.

Now, it goes without saying that I am in no position to judge the morality of actions that I know about only from summary news reports. And I hope it is obvious that I consider this a day of legitimate and true joy for the US. But this joy is tainted with sorrow, and with a sincere concern that our joy will turn to arrogance or forgetfulness of our own sins, and of our constant call to charity.

Hence my prayers for his soul. I know only of his public acts of violence and aggression; I know nothing of the state of his soul. I do know my own faults, and I hope that people will pray for me at my death. The Golden Rule dictates I do to others as I would have done to me, so...

From the gates of Hell, rescue his soul, O Lord. Amen.

Aborting government

2011-04-08T15:32:00.000-07:00

(Cross-posted at And Sometimes Tea)

In approximately six hours, the threat of a federal government shutdown may be realized if Congress can't pass a budget. And yes, the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood has remained a live one:

"We know the whole world is watching us today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
He, President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner all agreed a shutdown posed risks to an economy still recovering from the worst recession in decades. But there were disagreements aplenty among the principal players in an early test of divided government — Obama in the White House, fellow Democrats in control in the Senate and a new, tea party-flavored Republican majority in the House.
For much of the day, Reid and Boehner disagreed about what the disagreement was about. [...]
Originally, Republicans wanted to ban federal funds for Planned Parenthood, a health care services provider that is also the nation's largest provider of abortions.
Federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions except in strictly regulated cases, but supporters of the ban said cutting off government funds for the organization — currently about $330 million a year — would make it harder for it to use its own money for the same purpose.
Democrats rejected the proposal in private talks. Officials in both parties said Republicans returned earlier in the week with a proposal to distribute federal funds for family planning and related health services to the states, rather than directly to Planned Parenthood and other organizations.
Democrats said they rejected that proposal, as well, and then refused to agree to allow a separate Senate vote on the issue as part of debate over any compromise bill.
Instead, they launched a sustained campaign at both ends of the Capitol to criticize Republicans.

I highly doubt the whole world is watching this budget showdown; most Americans aren't even paying all that much attention. Because, if they were, I think more Americans would be outraged that the Democrats in Congress are ready to abort the funding of the federal government rather than stop funding the nation's largest abortion chop-shops run by Planned Parenthood.

For my part, I think that there are several bloated government projects that could stand to be aborted. Consider this list of some such projects from last year, courtesy of the Citizens Against Government Waste. Here are some of my favorites:

$12,500,000 by Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) for 13 projects, including: $2,750,000 for polymer research; $1,000,000 for wheat genetic research; $1,000,000 for a phosphorous reduction cooperative agreement through the Kansas Livestock Foundation; and $250,000 for workforce development and out-migration through the Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation (KFBF). In addition to the appropriation, KFBF has also applied for a $7 million stimulus grant for rural broadband deployment. To add insult to injury, the Kansas Farm Bureau, which is conveniently located at the same address as the foundation, had a fund balance of $98 million at the end of 2007. [...]

$775,000 for the Institute for Food Science and Engineering (IFSE) requested by Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.). One of IFSE’s research areas is called “Pickle Science and Technology” which the institute’s website boasts, “is dedicated to increasing product value by improving production and quality of pickled vegetables. The program, which enjoys significant industry support, includes the annual national evaluation of pickled vegetable products.” With the continued spending of taxpayer money on initiatives like these, it is not surprising that taxpayers are in a financial pickle of more than $12.7 trillion in debt. [...]

$61,600,000 for 30 projects by Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), including: $14,000,000 for the Cooperative Institute and Research Center for Southeast Weather and Hydrology at the University of Alabama; $6,000,000 for six projects for the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville; $1,000,000 for the Tools for Tolerance program at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California; $250,000 for a wireless area network for the city of Hartselle (population 13,888); $200,000 for the Cherokee County Methamphetamine and Marijuana Reduction program; and $150,000 for Zelpha’s Cultural Development Corporation for the University of Alabama’s After-School Delinquency Prevention program. [...]

$1,200,000 by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), House appropriator Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) for the American Museum of Natural History for infectious disease research. Funding museum research in a defense bill really bugs taxpayers. [...]

$1,250,000 by Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee member Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) for research into the long-term environmental and economic impacts of the development of a coal liquefaction sector in China. Sen. Byrd has directed $2,070,150 to this project over the past three years. [...]

I could go on, but you get the point--and that's before we look at the number of "historic" small theaters, museums, and other businesses being restored with federal money, because apparently the people who actually live near these things don't care to spend state or local funds to fix them up. Something to bear in mind as you work on your taxes this weekend, anyway.

So, I'm all for a government shutdown, if it comes to that. I'd much rather abort wasteful government than continue to permit federal funds to finance the Abortion Kings of America over at Margaret Sanger's racist, eugenicist organization, Planned Parenthood (unofficial slogan: "We kill more of the poor than drugs and gun violence combined!"). Let's hope enough of the new Republicans are thinking the same thing tonight.

We are not Globocop

2011-03-09T13:33:00.000-08:00

Sorry this blog has not been updated in so long. I plan to work harder on getting at least a weekly post out.

A reader asks Mark Shea about Libya. Here's part of Mark's answer:

Now consider: Libya has not attacked us. It poses no lasting, grave, and certain threat to us. The competent authority in international peace-keeping is not us, but the UN (as we ourselves agreed by signing on with the UN), and the evils of our intruding into the internal affairs of this (and a hundred other) countries is not proving to produce evils and disorders less grave than the evil to be eliminated.

In short, we are not Globocop, we are a hubris-filled nation drunk on the blood of the unborn, gluttonous for Mammon, teetering on the brink of financial ruin, in hock up to our ears, with an over-extended and increasingly exhausted military that was not intended to maintain an expanding Empire while attempting to build the Great Society abroad. This is their war, not ours.

Read the whole thing.

Mark Shea on true and false courage

2011-01-26T10:55:00.000-08:00

A terrific piece from Mark:

Similarly, many a radically selfish person has managed to convince himself he was a soul dedicated to the Good of Mankind or the Love of God even as he was about the business of doing some miserable piece of self-serving filth and telling himself throughout the whole affair that the gag reflex he felt was what truly courageous people must muscle down as they defy God and conscience for the Greater Good.
If that is so, then how do we make the distinction between a radically good and radically evil act? How do we tell that one is advocating radical evil and another is advocating radical Christian charity?

The answer is the cross. What marks out Jesus' radical act of courage is that He is brave in offering His own life, not some other innocent person. Conversely, if somebody is "courageously" willing to make some innocent person suffer or die, that's your first clue that they are not courageous for the things of God.

And so, for instance, Himmler is very brave with the lives of innocent people and singularly protective of his own. Likewise, Myers does not volunteer his own body to be reduced to a piece of meat for the sake of Science, much less for the sake of a baby. He demonstrates a congenital inability to distinguish brutality from courage and regards himself as brave for, among other things, being unmoved by the thought of stabbing a defenseless baby to death with scissors. The distinction between that act and interposing one's body between the baby and a fiend like himself is lost on a moral monster like Myers, as it is on Himmler. Like Jeffrey Dahmer, he is "unafraid" to reduce persons to meat. (And, oddly, nobody frets about his "incivility" or the effect he might have on some Jared Loughner in his class.)

In the same way, the Croatian guard is "brave" enough to slaughter innocents, but not enough to slaughter his nationalism on the cross of Christ.

Go read the whole thing here.

We've seen the "false courage" motif crop up in torture debates. The idea is that those who oppose torture are too cowardly to "man up" and do What Must Be Done to Defend Our Nation. The response to that is simple: a nation that can only be defended by having recourse to torture--or, indeed, any other intrinsic evil--is a nation no longer worthy of defending.

More fun with the death penalty

2011-01-18T09:54:00.000-08:00

Mark posts over at Inside Catholic on the death penalty with predictable results.

Here's the skinny:

The Church teaches, as she has always taught, that a legitimate government has the authority to execute a criminal

The Church teaches, as she has always taught, that the government has the responsibility to use capital punishment rarely, when a criminal's sure threat posed to the common good cannot be otherwise met

John Paul II and the Catechism teach that such circumstances under which the death penalty may be justly and prudently imposed are so rare as to be nonexistent, for practical purposes

However, neither JP2 nor the Catechism impose the burden of sin on any governmental officers who impose or enforce a sentence of capital punishment - given that the process is imposed and executed as justly as possible

Mark calls this position "death penalty minimalism" which seems a good enough moniker to me. It is consistent with the philosophical principles of Catholic Social Teaching, and with the ancient tradition of Catholic moral teaching. It is consistent with scripture and with all the saints I know of.

Some go further, calling for an all-out abolition of the death penalty; this is acceptable under Catholic teaching, so long as they do not oppose the State's obligation to defend the common good.

Some argue strongly to retain the legal option of the death penalty; this is acceptable under Catholic teaching, so long as they recognize that capital punishment is a tool that poses dangers as great or greater than those it solves, and must be used with extreme caution.

I don't have strong opinions on the issue myself, except to maintain clarity that Catholic moral teaching does not necessarily map to party policy, and may have a variety of practical implementations.

Love your neighbor as yourself

2011-01-14T10:08:00.000-08:00

I keep noticing, both in the comments here and on other sites, that some people seem to see a contradiction between the divine command to love one's neighbor and the natural right to defend oneself and others.

The Catholic Church sees no such contradiction. There are a few basic principles which allow us to find clarity in complex situations.

The first principle is simply the Law of Love, also known as the two Greatest Commandments:

"Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law?" And he [Jesus] said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22.36-40)

Now, "Love" in the Christian tradition means much more than a nice feeling or an attraction or any such emotion. Love is an act, the most fundamental act of a person. It is to will what is good. Love delights in a good that is present, and pursues a good that is absent. The love of charity, the perfection of love to which we are called, seeks the good of union with God, which is the highest good, and the one that all persons share in.

In other words, to love God is to delight in his glory. To love myself is to seek union with God. And to love my neighbor is to seek my neighbor's union with God.

Now, this sounds very abstract and mystical, but it has some very practical implications. Perhaps most importantly, it shows us the priority of goods in the world. Everything God has made is good in itself; but not everything is good for me (or for my neighbor) at any given time. Things are good insofar as they draw us closer to God.

So, my physical safety and integrity are good things. Most of the time, being healthy and secure is a real help toward union with God. But there are times when my physical or social safety becomes an obstacle to union with God. To admit I am a practicing Christian at school or at work can lead to ostracization. To serve the poor and the sick risks infection or theft of my property. To refuse undue honor to Muhammad or to the Koran, in some parts of the world today, risks imprisonment, torture, or even death.

In other words, when even a good so important as my physical integrity is set against the good of God, the choice must be for God.

Martyrdom is not something we seek out for its own sake. It is something we endure only when necessity drives us to it. So, when possible, we try to hold onto both goods: bodily integrity and union with God. Under normal circumstances, these goods are not opposed to one another. Martyrdom - of any kind or degree - is not normal.

Now, if we love our neighbors as ourselves, then we will be concerned for their physical integrity as for our own. That is, whenever it does not conflict with union with God, we will seek to defend and promote their bodily good. In families, this means caring for and sticking up for one another. In communities, this takes both personal forms - such as intervening when you witness a crime in progress - to institutional forms - such as the police and military.

The whole notion of rights to self defense and just war are founded, in the Catholic tradition, on the law of love. They are legitimate rights, but they are limited because they are not ends or obligations in themselves; they are for the sake of union with God.

So, I do not have the right to defend myself by any means necessary. Rather, I have the right to defend myself insofar as I do not commit a sin in doing so. I can fire a gun at my attacker, even shoot to kill if that is the only way to defeat the attack; but I cannot poison him, or maim him, or use deadly force where lesser force is a real option. In other words, I may not commit murder, even to prevent my own murder.

Likewise, the State has the obligation to defend the common good, and so (as noted) has the right to detain and punish criminals up to depriving them of life. It has the right to maintain a military fighting force, and to engage an attacking enemy. But the State does not have the right to murder. It has no right to kill a criminal when other means of defending the common good will do; and it has no right to use military force when other options for defense are available. It has no right, ever, to attack a neighbor. The only truly just war is a war of defense.

This will make clear, I hope, the second principle, that we may never do evil, even for apparently good reasons or seeking good consequences. Murder, the deliberate taking of innocent life, is always and under any circumstances, wrong. For that matter, any deliberate attempt to harm another person in any way, that is, to act contrary to their good, is an evil act.

The second principle simply states that nothing supersedes or dispenses from the first principle.

Hopefully, this will make the theory usually called "double effect" more clear. Double effect is a last-resort theory for extraordinary circumstances, when no choice is an unmixed good. It does not permit anyone, ever, to choose an evil act under any circumstances. Rather, it acknowledges that there are times when, no matter what one does, something bad will likely result.

First, I make sure what I am going to do is itself a good act; for example, I am defending myself and/or my children against an attacker

Next, I see what possible evils could result; for example, I recognize that I will likely injure, perhaps even kill, the attacker; I also risk injury or death myself

Finally, I make sure that the evil I risk or allow is not disproportionate to the good I seek; for example, if my attacker has a pocket knife, I don't respond with a 9mm

This principle applies to acts of individuals as well as institutional acts of governments. Morality doesn't change with size; only the means available change.

I hope this clarifies why, from the perspective of Catholic moral teaching, torture and abortion and euthanasia are always wrong; the death penalty, self defense, and defensive war must be used with extreme caution, if ever; and "pre-emptive" wars are inherently unjust.

Solidarity

2011-01-07T11:56:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've posted here; I'm hoping to get back onto a regular posting schedule again in this new year.

I'm sure you've already seen this, but it's worth sharing:

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.
From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

“This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

Often times, the proponents of torture will use language that demonizes all Muslim people, as will, indeed, others caught up in propaganda. I have seen and heard the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" used as synonyms for "terrorist," sometimes by people who should know better. But not only is this unjust to the sort of Muslims described above, it has the effect of placing a whole category of people into a sort of "nonperson" or depersonalized status.

Just as proponents of abortion often refer to "fetuses" or "embryos" or even "zygotes" as if these terms clearly denote someone who is less than human, so too do people at various times in history tend to depersonalize whole cultures and societies with whom they might be at war. During World War II, for instance, epithets like "Huns" and "Japs" were used to refer not only to enemy soldiers, but to everyone who had the misfortune of living in Germany or Japan; from there it was a short step to the view that there was really no such thing as a noncombatant, and that everyone within the enemy countries' borders was "fair game" for acts of war.

The brave Muslims who attended Mass with their Christian neighbors as a rebuke to the terrorists have demonstrated three important things: the kind of solidarity that all human beings should strive for with each other, the courage to reject evils being done in the name of the religion they practice, and the committment to peaceful and civil relations with all the people in their nation. We should at least have the similar courage to correct anyone who says that "the Muslims" are the problem in regard to modern-day peace efforts; the terrorists are the problem, but many Muslims are tired of being associated with the intolerant and irrational thuggery and violence that terrorists create.

Health care and the lack thereof

2010-12-27T20:22:00.000-08:00

I'm a regular reader of Get Religion, a blog by and for journalists who cover religious issues. It's often the place I find out about news I would otherwise have missed, as in this article which led me to the New York Times article that reveals Obama's plan to reinstate "'voluntary advance care planning' to discuss end-of-life treatment," which was famously (whether accurately or not) called "death panels."

Now, let's be honest. Economics is part of life and part of health care decisions. It doesn't matter how much I need a particular medicine or treatment; if it's not available, I'm not going to get it. If it's outrageously expensive, then the only way I'll get it is by sacrificing some other good.

Moreover, our obligation is not to prolong life at any cost whatsoever. Our obligation is to make every reasonable effort to provide healing and care.

But economics is far from the only issue involved. And I very much distrust any advice that reduces "Quality of Life" to a merely economic factor in a purely economic decision.

So, while I don't mind talking with my doctor about the pros and cons of various options for treating a terminal disease or for treatment of my advancing age, I do mind the government butting in to give its own advice. I particularly object to the government providing financial incentive for my doctor to follow their advice.

So, by all means, make plans for future contingencies. Medical advance directives and durable powers of attorney are important tools, especially in a climate where doctors are pressured to ignore both their own moral compass and that of their patients. But make sure your legal documents genuinely protect your freedom and your faith.

As an addendum, here is the Catechism on end-of-life issues:

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

[... snip ...]

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for it's sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

2292 Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health.

2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.

2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

Punishing children for their parents' immigration?

2010-12-02T14:58:00.000-08:00

Mark Shea, writing about the DREAM act, says the following:

This seems to me to be simple justice. Sure, secure the borders. Do what you can to stop more illegal immigration. Fine by me. But, in the meantime, while "failure to fill out paperwork" is certainly a problem, depriving workers of their wages is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance in our tradition. Since we have long ago agreed to integrate these people into our nation in order to exploit them, we owe it in justice to, at the very least, not screw their kids. One might even hope that a time will come that we won't screw the parents either.

This seems very sane and sensible to me. In some instances we are debating sending home the adult children of those who came here illegally, when those children have been here since the ages of one, two, or three years old, don't remember their home country, speak English as well or better as their parents' native tongue, and have no roots anywhere but here. To punish them for the illegal entry of their parents seems like an injustice, and one we can easily remedy.

2010-11-29T17:05:00.000-08:00

Crossposted from my personal blog:

I had been hearing about the Christmas Tree bomber in Portland all weekend, and was very glad to finally hear somebody mention the word "entrapment." But it's not just Mohamed Osman Mohamud I'm concerned about.

I'm worried about an FBI team who contacts an isolated individual who's failing to make contact with jihadist radicals, teaches him how to make a bomb, helps him to plan and carry out an attack, and chooses a large and public venue to arrest him.

I'm worried about an Attorney General who claims "that if Mohamud hadn't come in contact with the FBI, he 'would have made his plans tragically real.'"

And I'm worried about mass media outlets that just repeat the line that this is a plot that has been "thwarted" or "foiled."

For the record, it sounds to me like this Mohamud fellow may actually have become a threat on his own someday. He very well may have warranted observation by the FBI. But the way the Bureau pursued this investigation sounds very much like entrapment for Mohamud and fear-mongering for the rest of us.

"Look!" says the FBI & co., "here's a home-grown terrorist you should be afraid of! It could be anybody! What's a little inappropriate pat-down compared to the risk of being bombed while lighting a Christmas Tree? What's a little warrantless wiretapping or email surveillance next to, you know, a west coast 9-11?"

What would have been wrong with just watching this kid, and seeing what he does on his own? At least then, he might have actually led investigators to a real terrorist cell, and could have led to some genuine intelligence of real plots to commit terrorist acts. And, when arrested, he might have been guilty of a real crime.

As it is, he's just become the solitary target of an FBI plot to ... to what? boost their own ratings? I hope not. To foil and thwart terrorist attacks? Not very effectively.

I want good security and I want active intelligence gathering on terrorist activities. But that's not what this was. At best, this was a colossal mistake. If anyone in the FBI is reading this, please, don't make the same mistake again.

Mark reminds us

2010-11-16T09:47:00.000-08:00

... why we started the Coalition for Clarity in the first place.

Obedience, Orthodoxy, and Torture

Theologian appointed to CCHD

2010-11-10T13:54:00.000-08:00

This is a step in the right direction: a theologian well grounded in the fullness of Catholic Social Teaching and solidly in support of its pro-life implications "will provide ongoing consultation on the moral and ethical dimensions of campaign's work."

Now, some already are saying, "Too little too late." I agree that this step is a far cry from the kind of butt-kicking and name-taking that some people favor. But it is in keeping with the wait-until-harvest attitude our Lord recommends. It's a step toward insuring greater conformity to Catholic morality without seeking a target for condemnation. In other words, it's a step toward solving the problem rather than blaming the problem.

I'm not saying it's time to rush out and give all your worldly goods to CCHD. I think it's important to hold them accountable, and to ask for evidence that Fr. Mindling is effective in his mission.

But I am saying, it's good to see a step in the right direction, even if it looks like a small step.

George W. Bush and waterboarding

2010-11-04T16:51:00.000-07:00

In his new book, former President George W. Bush shows his pro-waterboarding side (Hat tip: a reader who shared this from the CatholicVote.org site):

In a memoir due out Tuesday, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of that coercive technique against alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission the human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.

In his book, titled "Decision Points," Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was "Damn right" and states that he would make the same decision again to save lives, according to a someone close to Bush who has read the book. [...]
The Justice Department later repudiated some of the underlying legal analysis for the CIA effort. But Bush told an interviewer a week before leaving the White House that "I firmly reject the word 'torture,' " and he reiterates that view in the book. Reuters and the New York Times first published accounts of the book's contents Tuesday evening.

Would that he had firmly rejected the use of torture, not merely the word.

Well, this was inevitable

2010-10-28T09:43:00.000-07:00

Police have arrested a man for waterboarding his girlfriend:

OCTOBER 28--After accusing his girlfriend of cheating on him, a Nebraska man allegedly tied the woman to a couch in their apartment and waterboarded her, according to police.
Trevor Case, 22, has been charged with domestic assault, false imprisonment, and making terroristic threats in connection with the bizarre incident early Saturday morning at the Lincoln home he shared with the 22-year-old victim.

Police allege that Case stuffed "hospital socks" into Danielle Stallworth's mouth and bound her wrists with belts and hair ties before placing a shirt over her head and dousing it with water, according to a Lincoln Police Department report. “He poured a pitcher of water on her head, and she started freaking out and thought she wasn’t able to breathe,” cops noted.

The waterboarding practice, of course, leaves victims with the sensation that they are drowning. [Link in original...E.M.].

Well, thank goodness he didn't torture her. (Sarcasm alert.)

One of the commenters under the article appears to blame...the liberal media. 'Cause, you know, if they'd kept their mouths shut about all that Enhanced Interrogation so vital and necessary to national security, then only professionals would be doing it, and we wouldn't have these "back alley enhanced interrogation" situations (a phrase which, alas, didn't occur to the commenter, though it does to me).

Maybe they can charge this man with impersonating a federal agent.

One big (happy?) family

2010-10-27T12:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Pope Benedict announced the "theme" for next year's World Day of Migrants and Refugees, January 16, 2011: One Human Family.

Essentially, he notes that our nature as human persons, created in God's image and likeness, is foundational to all our ethical and (therefore) political decisions. A migrant or a refugee is, first and foremost, a brother or sister in Christ.

Here's the heart of it:

Venerable John Paul II, on the occasion of this same Day celebrated in 2001, emphasized that "[the universal common good] includes the whole family of peoples, beyond every nationalistic egoism. The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one's country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life" (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. "The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life" (World Day of Peace 2001, 13).

Yes, he said that migration is a human right. It is not a privilege or a civil right bestowed by human government.

At the same time, that right (like all rights) comes with responsibilities. A migrant is responsible to respect the laws and customs of their host country. That includes the immigration laws. At minimum, this is simple courtesy. Taken to an extreme, it's recognizing the difference between a guest and an invader.

Refugees are a challenge, but in most cases I'm aware of they are covered by national and international law. If someone is fleeing a threat in their home country, then the human community as a whole has a responsibility to provide a safe haven for them.

Now, all this said, it doesn't directly address the issue prominent in our own country: that of large numbers of illegal economic migrants.

I'm in no place to suggest a particular policy, but I would note that there are some basic principles that we must insist upon:

Migrants are human persons, and must be treated with dignity and with respect for their basic human rights

A just solution includes, not only enforcement of our border security, but also enforcement of workers' rights, penalties for employers who put profit above their legal obligations

A just solution must also include some kind of provision for the millions of migrant families here illegally - especially the children

This last is probably the stickiest sticking point for some, but it follows directly from the first.

We already make provision for law-breakers; in many cases, it's called prison.

I'm not suggesting that we imprison illegal immigrants; but I am suggesting that their humanity precedes their criminality, and that it may not be possible to punish the crime without committing a greater crime against their families.

In other words, immigration reform really must be comprehensive: it must shift the whole legal and economic structure toward greater justice, and it must provide a practical way to do so without committing further injustice.

It's a tall order. If I find a solution, I'll let you know. In the meantime, let's pray, and let's keep our arguments clean and focused on finding a solution.

What are we going to do?

2010-10-14T12:03:00.000-07:00

Our loyal reader who goes by the handle lovethegirls asks:

How do you take usury out of a market grounded on usury? How do you take materialism out a market grounded in materialism?

That's the $64M question, now, isn't it?

The good news is, we're free to establish a market grounded on another foundation than usury, say, a foundation of justice or of the common good. Nobody's going to stop us. America is indeed a free country.

The bad news is, at this point in history, in twenty-first century America, it will require a great deal of sacrifice to do so.

But the sacrifice is not life and limb; the sacrifice is comfort, and "standard of living."

There are some products we just won't be able to get without patronizing those who exploit their workers for profit, or without partnering with usurious banks or other institutions. We'll have to do without them.

There are some services that will be closed to us. For example, I'm not sure it's possible to find internet access that isn't dependent on usury or some other form of injustice. (I'm at a public library right now; even this is a mixed blessing.)

In terms of contributing to society, we'll face an uphill battle: government regulations are written assuming the current inhumane standards for economics; massive corporations founded on this materialistic economic theory control most of the resources available for producing goods and getting them to market.

And yet, I'm convinced that God never asks the impossible of us. lovethegirls continues to say:

In other words, I don't think there are any solutions which can be imposed, but that the solution is to wait for a "A Catholic approach" to evolve organically"

I hope he doesn't mean to suggest we just wait on our duffs for something new to miraculously appear. It seems to me that we can and must look for whatever good changes we can make to our own economic habits, and look for ways to spread the gospel of human dignity, in whatever way we can. If we offer our best efforts, if we make real sacrifices and offer them to our Lord, we can trust his Holy Spirit to guide us in seeking a solution. The solution will probably bear little resemblance to whatever systems or notions we have in mind now; but so long as we are seeking God, we will eventually arrive at the solution he provides.

Catholic college, pro-torture professor?

2010-10-14T11:49:00.001-07:00

In my internet meanderings, I came across a video about a protest of torture memo author John Yoo speaking at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis/St. Paul. I discovered that Yoo's co-author on those memos, Robert J. Delahunty, is on the faculty there, and the advertised lecture was billed as a kind of reunion for these Bush-era advisers.

Now, I'm under no illusions that Catholic higher education actually holds and teaches according to the Catholic faith these days. I thought it was idiotic of Notre Dame to bring President Obama to speak, and I think it's scandalous how many Catholic campuses roll out the red carpet for the propagandizers of abortion and sexual license.

But this is no less scandalous: that a Catholic university, listing "We respect the dignity of each person" as a "Conviction" and as a component of their mission, should choose Delahunty as a formator of their law students, and should invite Yoo to address their community, without answer or contradiction.

I had thought that torture, at least, was one area that Catholic academics could get it right.

Is government the best way?

2010-10-09T09:21:00.000-07:00

I don't agree with everything Pat Buchanan says here, but it's still an interesting read:

What a changed country we have become in our expectations of ourselves. A less affluent America survived a Depression and world war without anything like the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, welfare payments, earned income tax credits, food stamps, rent supplements, day care, school lunches and Medicaid we have today.
Public or private charity were thought necessary, but were almost always to be temporary until a breadwinner could find work or a family could get back on its feet. The expectation was that almost everyone, with hard work and by keeping the nose to the grindstone, could make his or her own way in this free society. No more.
What we have accepted today is a vast permanent underclass of scores of millions who cannot cope and must be carried by the rest of society – fed, clothed, housed, tutored, medicated at taxpayers' expense for their entire lives. We have a new division in America: those who pay a double fare, and those who forever ride free.
We Americans are not only not the people our parents were, we are not the people we were. FDR was right about what would happen to the country if we did not get off the narcotic of welfare.

Of course, a less affluent America could still build their own homes (as my grandfather did) without being forced to abide by laws and building codes and safety requirements put into place for huge home builders. And own these homes outright. And commute to work, to the grocery store, and to Church every Sunday without needing a car. And...well, the point is that the change to modern living has been expensive, and we're still all paying for it.

But, on the other hand, as I wrote on my other blog recently, there is something somewhat troubling about seeing people rely on entitlement programs as a needed part of their "incomes," rather than a temporary safety net. This is especially troubling when the entitlement is seen as something "free" which is coming from the "government" instead of as something which costs my neighbor something, and which is confiscated from him, diminishing his ability to pay for his own family's needs.

No Catholic would deny the need for sound, practical, regular, efficient ways of providing for the needs of the poor. But are government entitlement programs the best way? Is there, as Buchanan says, a danger that a person's own natural and laudable desire to work and to provide for his own and his loved ones' needs might be destroyed by such programs? Do the programs contribute to the destruction of marriage and the family--or are they merely necessary in a culture which sees both marriage and the family as disposable?

What do you think?

The disservice 10:10 does to the environment.

2010-10-07T12:13:00.001-07:00

Others have noted the gruesome video posted by the British wing of the environmental group 10:10. I won't link to it here, because it really is disgusting; but here's a good summary of the controversy. In short, it's a series of scenes in which a teacher, a boss, a football team, and so on "suggest" that people reduce their carbon emissions by 10%. They ask who is on board, and who isn't. "No pressure." Then they push a little red button and those not on board explode, covering everyone else, and the camera lens, with blood and guts.

Now, environmental stewardship is one of the important features of Catholic morality: we are here to keep and tend the garden, after all. But ads like this betray a bizarre and anti-human attitude among some environmental activists. It's vital to realize that humanity is itself part of the environment, and the part for which we have the greatest responsibility to protect and respect.

In other words, environmental protection only makes sense as a life issue, and when you throw out the connection to human dignity you end up in the culture of death.

Other Catholic responses:
Mike Flynn
Mark Shea
Jeff Miller

The Curt Jester on hyphenated-Catholics

2010-10-07T12:00:00.000-07:00

Jeff Miller makes some great points while critiquing the idea of a "Catholic Tea Party" as too limiting and politicizing for the Catholic Church or her members. The heart of it:

When you confuse the faith with a political party it makes it easier for someone in the other party to dismiss you.

Fighting against abortion is not a conservative thing, it is a protection of the truth that we are created in the image of God and that the innocent can not be murdered. Doing what we can to help the poor is not a liberal idea, but again the protection of the truth that we are created in the image of God and that we can not limit the scope of the world neighbor.

"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." (1 Tim 1.15) That is, people like me, and like you, and even those poor schleps who get involved with politics.

Placing blame

2010-09-27T20:31:00.000-07:00

Mark Shea on illegal immigration:

I don't get the panic over illegal immigrants. They are thoroughly woven into our economy, so it's cloud cuckoo unrealism to imagine we are going round up 12 million of them and send them back. And they are, largely, Lazarus--doing back-breaking work that we need them to do and getting crap wages for it. I've never understood the menace they allegedly represent: hard-working, largely Catholic, with a strong sense of family who have shown repeatedly that they want to make a better life for themselves and their kids. Yeah, sure, they've ignored US immigration law: a human system. Not ideal, but not the end of the world either. The reality, though, is that large segment of our economy would collapse without them. So since we have already made it clear we are willing to exploit them, I think the real onus is, as ever, on the powerful rather than the powerless. Weak and hungry people who fudge on a human law are guilty, it seems to me, of a venial sin at best. Powerful people who exploit the poor and the alien and deny the worker his wages are guilty of three of the sins that cry out to heaven for judgement.
1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.
Such is the fractured nature of American politics that the first two sins are sacred rights defended as "freedom of choice" and "the right to gay marriage" by the Left, while the latter three sins are solemnly defended pillars of any conservative worth his salt. We'll take the powerless migrant's labor, denounce him for doing it and then defend the guy who pays him crap wages. Any sympathy for the poor and powerless laborer is bleeding heart liberalism and (naturellement) incipient socialism.

Read the whole thing here.

I think that any attempt to solve the problem of illegal immigration is going to have to be clear about why it's a problem in the first place: that is, we have to identify the powerful corporate interests that entice (and even bus) immigrants into our country to do the jobs that these corporations won't pay Americans to do. And before we start punishing the illegal immigrant, we need to punish American businesses that insist that in order to maintain the level of stockholder profit they've become used to, they can't afford to hire Americans.

Because I don't believe there are jobs Americans won't do. I do, however, believe that there are plenty of companies out there who won't pay Americans to do the jobs their companies depend on. Let's make sure that the proper share of blame gets placed where it belongs, on the issue of illegal immigration.

The Philippines, at least, gets it right

2010-09-26T11:16:00.000-07:00

Filipino pro-life groups see no conflict between opposition to abortion and opposition to torture. They see that both are necessary to promote the dignity of human life. Therefore, pro-life groups there gladly stand with other anti-torture groups in proposing more humane legislation.

The world is not divided between Democrat and Republican. At most, it's our United States of America. And hopefully, that dysfunctional bipolarity won't continue much longer even here.

Should this woman be executed?

2010-09-21T18:37:00.001-07:00

Even if you support the death penalty in theory, I think it's rather difficult to support it in this case:

WASHINGTON — Barring a last-minute reprieve from the US Supreme Court, 41-year-old Teresa Lewis will on Thursday become the first woman to be executed by the state of Virginia in almost 100 years.
Abolitionists paint Lewis as a classic example of why capital punishment is flawed, saying the mother and grandmother has diminished mental faculties and was taken advantage of by smarter accomplices.
But with an IQ hovering at 70 or above, Lewis is considered fit for trial in Virginia and she pleaded guilty to hiring two men to murder her husband and stepson to pocket their 350,000-dollar life insurance policy. [...]
Lewis met Rodney Fuller and Matthew Shallenberger in a Walmart superstore. Soon she began an affair with the 22-year-old Shallenberger and encouraged her 16-year-old daughter to get together with Fuller, who was 19.
Lewis admits she left the door of the family trailer in rural Pittsylvania County open in 2002 so the two young accomplices could enter and shoot her husband and his 25-year-old son, who was in the military.
All three pleaded guilty. The triggermen got life in prison, but Lewis, who was deemed fit to stand trial, was sentenced to death as the mastermind of the killings, or in the words of the judge "the head of this serpent."
His summation is far from the portrayal that Lewis supporters offer -- that of a borderline mentally disabled woman, who struggled with a behavioral dependency disorder and was addicted to prescription drugs. [...]
Lewis's lawyers argue that new evidence, including her low IQ, has appeared since her trial that should prevent her execution.
The key piece of evidence they want considered is a letter from Shallenberger, who killed himself in jail in 2006, in which he claims full responsibility for the murder plot and suggests he pushed Lewis into it.
"From the moment I met her I knew she was someone who could be easily manipulated," he allegedly wrote. "Killing Julian and Charles Lewis was entirely my idea. I needed money, and Teresa was an easy target."

I hasten to say that the killings are not to be condoned in any way; nor should Teresa Lewis' role in them be ignored. But is there any reason why life in prison without possibility of parole shouldn't be the more just punishment for a woman with a low IQ whose partners in crime received only this punishment, and no more? Does Lewis pose an ongoing threat to society? Does executing her protect the people of Virginia in any way?

What do you think?

40 Days for Life

2010-09-21T10:52:00.000-07:00

Though it seems to surprise some readers, we at the Coalition for Clarity consider opposition to abortion to be at least as important, if not more so, than opposition to torture. We consider both stands to be in keeping with our commitment to promoting the dignity of the human person in every circumstance.

Therefore, I'm happy to promote the latest campaign by 40 Days for Life, an internationally coordinated campaign to raise awareness of the consequences of abortion for local communities, families, and friends.

They follow a three-pronged strategy:

Prayer and fasting

Constant vigil

Community outreach

This run of the campaign stretches from September 22 through October 31, 2010. It's easy to get involved in almost any State of the Union, and in several countries beyond the borders of the U.S.A. Click and go!

A day for prayer and penance

2010-09-11T11:01:00.000-07:00

There are so many possible reactions to September 11, most of them embodying some flavor of anger. Anger has its place: anger moves us to work for justice.

But if we're going to commemorate September 11, I suggest that the most Catholic way to do this is with prayer and penance.

Let's pray for our nation, for all those who have been harmed - directly or indirectly - by the attacks of nine years ago.

Let's also pray for our enemies and bless those who persecute us. (As St. Paul reminds us, this heaps burning coals of charity upon their heads. He follows saying, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12.19-21) Let's pray for God's will to be done for them, especially that they may repent and find the fullness of Truth.

And let's offer whatever sufferings we bear, whether they're related to the attacks or any subsequent events or are purely personal, to God our Father in union with the sufferings our Lord Jesus bore on the cross. Let's do some act of penance today, in reparation for our own sins, and for the sins of all the world.

This suggestion goes against my personal inclinations; but one of the roles of religion is to correct and refine our personal inclinations. Today, whatever feelings arise in me, I'll try to put my remembrance into action through prayer and penance.

Do we need more nukes?

2010-09-02T11:49:00.000-07:00

If you don't already read the Catholic Key blog--you should. Jack Smith does an amazing job.

Today, he highlights Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn's statement on the groundbreaking of a nuclear weapons plant in the area. Excerpt:

On September 8, 2010 ground will be broken to begin construction of a new facility for the production of non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons in South Kansas City. In the Catholic Church September 8^th is the feast of the Birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The confluence of the groundbreaking with the feast of Mary’s nativity provides the opportunity to pause at the irony of the situation: Mary, mother of the Prince of Peace, and the construction of a facility whose main purpose is the construction of weapons for warfare.

The Catholic tradition has always affirmed the right of a state to defend itself from unjust aggression. Implicit in that right is the need to equip a trained military force. We do not deny this obligation and necessity on the part of any state.

However, the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction – which this nuclear plant proposes to construct – constitutes a grave moral danger. Nuclear weapons are by their very nature weapons of mass destruction: their force and impact cannot be contained, and their use affects combatants and non-combatants alike. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons – especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to use them” (CCC #2314; cf. also Gaudium et Spes #80). Since the use of such weapons is morally questionable, it follows that the production of such weapons is also morally questionable.

Read the whole thing here.

Do we really need, at this point in history, to build more and more nuclear weapons? Is this something Catholics should generally oppose? What do you think?

UPDATE: Mark Shea weighs in here.

The definition game

2010-08-25T16:00:00.000-07:00

In various places around the Internet, including my blog, I find myself arguing with people against the idea of gay "marriage." In the course of participating in discussions about this topic, I've started to learn the difference between an effective argument and an ineffective one as regards the idea of same-sex "marriage."

One of the less effective arguments often goes something like this, and is conducted between a traditional marriage supporter (TSM) and a gay-rights advocate (GRA):

TSM: Two people of the same gender can't get married. That changes the definition of marriage.

GRA: What is the definition of marriage?

TSM: Marriage is a legal and sexual union between one man and one woman.

GRA: And where does this definition come from?

TSM: Our culture and civilization. Marriage has meant this one thing for a couple thousand years, at least.

GRA: But if our culture wants to change the definition, then it can.

TSM: But having same-sex marriage changes the definition too much. If marriage isn't between a man and a woman, then what is it?

GRA: It's the legal and sexual union of two people. Gender isn't important.

TSM: But gender is important to the definition of marriage.

GRA: To a definition, maybe. But there have been many definitions of marriage throughout human history. And we no longer think gender matters in most areas. So why should it matter in marriage?

TSM: Because marriage is about procreation, about having children...

GRA: Now, wait a minute! You said the definition of marriage was the legal and sexual union of a man and a women. There's nothing about children in the definition. If there were, then infertile couples and elderly couples couldn't get married.

TSM: Just because I didn't mention it didn't mean that it's not part of our understanding of...

GRA: But it's not in the definition. By the definition, marriage is pretty vague. There's no reason for it to involve a man and a woman, and not two men or two women. There's really no reason for it to be limited to two people, except that our culture isn't ready to take that step.

TSM: You're altering the definition so much that you're making the word marriage mean nothing!

GRA: Well, you can't seem to define it in such a way that it means only what you want it to mean. So maybe it doesn't really mean anything...

There are better ways to argue against gay marriage, of course. But I show this argument, which is a composite of many such discussions I've seen online and elsewhere, to show what happens when you insist on having a precise definition as the starting point for a discussion about a moral issue.

The same thing happens in the torture debate, from the opposite side. The torture defender insists that without an extremely precise definition of exactly what torture is in each and every possible hypothetical situation, we can't possibly say that torture is wrong, that it is morally evil, gravely so. But just as the definition of marriage is hard to pin down in a single declarative sentence drafted in such a way that it reflects the religious, moral, philosophical and cultural understanding of the Christian West and not, say, the understanding of ancient or modern pagan and/or polygamous cultures, etc., so is it difficult to pin down a definition of torture that, while being specific and legal, reflects the moral vision of Christianity. This is especially true of the vision of the Catholic Church, which clearly wishes to promote the idea that we ought to treat all people, including prisoners, humanely, and that various acts of violence, pain, coercion etc. violate that principle.

To put this more simply, in the gay "marriage" debate proponents of same-sex "marriage" want to start with a definition in order to deconstruct that definition; that is, they want a definition of marriage so that they can reword, alter, and destroy the definition to the point where it is meaningless enough to include the understanding of "marriage" they wish to promote. Similarly, in the torture debates, many (though not all) who want a clear, precise, exhaustive, and definitive definition of exactly what torture is want this definition so they can insist that certain things, such as waterboarding, or putting prisoners in freezing cold cells and drenching them with water, or humiliating them in various inhumane ways are somehow not torture, because our definition didn't actually mention these particular things.

In the discussions concerning marriage, it is important to remember that marriage, an enduring cultural institution centered around the building up of strong natural families and the raising by a man and a woman of their own biological children whenever possible, can't be reduced to a mere definition of a sentence or so. It is equally important in the discussions concerning torture to recall that humanity's capacity for the intentional infliction of suffering on our fellow human beings can't be summed up by a quick definition of what torture is. In both discussions, there is a tendency by those on the other side of the issue to insist on a definition merely as a starting point for the deconstruction of that definition--and the point of that, of course, is so that the perversions they wish to allow, whether gay "marriage" or "enhanced interrogation," are suddenly made possible by the destruction of their opponents' definitions of words like marriage or torture.

That slippery slope

2010-08-23T18:03:00.001-07:00

Sorry for the light posting--August is always a busy month. I have a post planned for this week about the problem with framing the debate about torture around the definition of torture.

In the meantime, Stephan Pastis of Pearls Before Swine shows, in the comic linked above, what can happen when you give governments the power to torture. Okay, it's humor, and I don't expect librarians to torture people who turn in books late--but that's the problem with granting government the authority to do evil: there's no guarantee that the evil will never be done to you.

We've already heard about pro-life activists placed on government "watch lists" for peaceful protesting and other free-speech activities. And I've read, on other blogs, calls for American prisoners--that is, American citizens arrested and charged with crimes--to be tortured in order for the truth about the crimes to be discovered.

This is why it's important to oppose torture even when the arguments are that it is necessary for American safety, will only be used against foreign criminals and terrorists, etc. Because once the government has the power to torture anybody, there's no guarantee that they will restrict this evil to foreign prisoners, or criminals, or terrorists. None whatsoever.

There are limits

2010-08-09T17:36:00.000-07:00

Today is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. Three days ago was the anniversary of the similar bombing of Hiroshima.

I've reposted, on my personal blog, a post about Nagasaki, which I wrote a few years ago. I would like to repeat here a part of my preface to that post: I am firmly and irrevocably on the side of those who say, without nuance, that our use of these weapons to destroy over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, to force Japan to an unconditional surrender (when, in fact, the Japanese had made overtures already for a surrender even on what were called hard terms) was a hideously immoral act, a grave evil.

Even if there had been no talk of surrender on the Japanese side, our use of these bombs was gravely evil. From their legacy come things like "pre-emptive bombing" and "enhanced interrogation" and the other policies of truly unjust warfare that have somehow become acceptable to far too many people.

A nation which thinks that using weapons which killed hugely disproportionate numbers of civilians was somehow justified by circumstances is a nation that will not accept any limits to its power. But there are limits; God places them upon us as a duty, and we are not under any circumstances, however dire, allowed to violate His moral law.

Same-sex marriage, immigration, and human dignity

2010-08-05T06:38:00.000-07:00

I wish I had time to think through and write a post or three on some recent Federal court cases. But I only have time to make a quick note and raise a question.

First, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked a big chunk of Arizona's law that brought immigration enforcement to the local level.

Second, yesterday U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled California's marriage-defining amendment to their state constitution as unconstitutional.

Both these rulings are of interest to Catholics, and I would note that (despite the apparent difference in subject matter) both are interesting for the same reason. The reason is that they ultimately are about how the government upholds or denigrates the dignity of the human person.

This is even the apparent concern of the judges who made the rulings. However, this is where competing notions about the foundation of human dignity arise.

From a Catholic perspective, human dignity is based in the gift of being made in the image and likeness of God, and is augmented by God's call to communion with him in the life of his Son.

It's not at all clear to me what basis these judges have for their ideas of human dignity.

So here's my question: in a nation that A) treats illegal immigrants - and those who employ them - with horrendously inconsistent laws and enforcements, B) regards marriage as a merely contractual arrangement, D) promotes research on human embryos, having been convinced that they're merely "blobs of tissue", and C) is willing to torture both foreigners and its own citizens ... how can we present to our elected officials and to the public generally a clear and consistent idea of human dignity? How can we preach the Gospel in such a way that it falls not on deaf ears?

That's a real question, not a rhetorical one. I'm working on some bits of an answer, but I have other ducks to get into a row just now. Hopefully I'll be able to post a few more ideas soon.

An enduring commitment to the protection of all human life

2010-08-02T20:22:00.000-07:00

(Cross-posted at And Sometimes Tea.)

The FDA has approved a company's study of the medical cannibalization of children:

A Menlo Park biotech firm said Friday that federal regulators will let it proceed with the world's first human test of a treatment made from embryonic stem cells, a much-anticipated but controversial study of patients with spinal cord injuries that had been placed on hold for nearly a year because of safety concerns.
If the treatment from Geron works, it "would be revolutionary," said Dr. Richard Fessler, a neurological surgeon at Northwestern University, who will lead the study of a stem-cell treatment designed to be injected into patients with spinal injuries to restore their motor function. "The therapy would provide a viable treatment option for thousands of patients who suffer severe spinal cord injuries each year."
Geron has spent 15 years and more than $150 million to develop the treatment, and "getting it into a clinical trial, just by itself, is a big deal," added Fessler, who has no financial ties to the company.
Many people hope that human embryonic stem cells, which can turn into any type of tissue in the body, could prove useful for everything from generating organs for transplants to helping test drugs on numerous diseases. But because the cells are derived from discarded 3- to-5-day-old embryos, their use by researchers has sparked ethical concerns and a highly contentious national debate.
The Food and Drug Administration had put the study on hold last year after a few animals the company was testing with its treatment developed small cysts. Although similar cysts had appeared in earlier animal studies, they appeared with "a higher frequency" in more recent animal tests, the company said at the time.

So eager is the culture of death to commence turning the surplus of manufactured children into a viable commercial product so they can make even more money off of the buying and selling of human beings that they are ignoring the potential side-effects, as well as the slightly inconvenient reality that adult stem cells, which carry no ethical baggage, are actually working quite well:

For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.

Adult stem cells are being studied in people who suffer from multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and diabetes. Some early results suggest stem cells can help some patients avoid leg amputation. Recently, researchers reported that they restored vision to patients whose eyes were damaged by chemicals.

Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.

"That's really one of the great success stories of stem cell biology that gives us all hope," says Dr. David Scadden of Harvard, who notes stem cells are also used to grow skin grafts.

"If we can recreate that success in other tissues, what can we possibly imagine for other people?"

Embryonic stem-cell research has yet to produce much of anything, and there are those pesky side-effects to consider. But, of course, researchers are sure that the only reason they've yet to perfect a magic cure for all known ailments of humankind except for reality television and news anchors is the fact that the Christianists out there are kind of squeamish about killing unborn children, mixing their cells with a jigger of gin and a dash of vermouth, and quaffing this new "Fountain of Life Cocktail" (price: dead innocents and the immortal souls of everybody involved in this hellish practice) and so won't allow oodles of free government money to entice women into selling off for cash those unwanted extra embryos they created in a rush of parental dreaming, back when they were still married to the father.

Here's the problem, for pro-life Catholic voters: Republicans are not as vehemently opposed to this barbarism as we'd like. In fact, quite a few of them aren't opposed at all (and apparently lack the awareness to see what is wrong with a phrase like "Find out how you can join the fight for personal freedoms and against Personhood today..." which can be seen on that homepage). In terms of our elected officials, it is sadly the case that in 2006, 17 Republican Senators voted in favor of expanding federally-funded ESCR, and a year later about 40 House Republicans did the same. And even those who oppose an expansion of federally-funded ESCR don't usually oppose the Bush "compromise" on the issue, which allowed such funding on research involving existing cell lines.

I've heard the objection: but compared to the Democrats, with their funding of abortion via the health care bill and their push to require Catholic hospitals to give out abortifacient contraceptives to rape victims and their support of partial birth abortion, etc., Republicans are shining examples of pro-life consistency and virtue, regardless of this little "hiccup" involving research on five-day-old unborn human beings (or on the cell lines already derived from such children, as if it's perfectly moral to participate in and profit from the murder of the unborn so long as one isn't actually doing the killing, or some such thing). There's no denying that when it comes to life issues, most Democrats are measurably worse than most Republicans--but if there are no consequences to Republicans for their support of things like ESCR, if people of faith give them a "pass" on this issue because they're better than the alternative, etc., then we do two things: we weaken our witness to the value of unborn human life, and we make it easier for the Republicans to run weaker and weaker candidates in the arena of life issues, and harder for us to insist that support of the killing of the unborn, whether via abortion or via medical research, is a deal-breaker for us when it comes to our votes.

In some senses, we've already done this. But should we continue? Or should we insist that the phrase "pro-life" means something real and substantial, and means, above all, an enduring commitment to the protection of all human life, born and unborn, regardless of age, health, or condition of dependency?

Not a valid basis

2010-08-01T10:39:00.000-07:00

War is not a blanket excuse for violating divine moral principles - or even human law.

Case in point: a contractor working for the U.S. military in Iraq is being sued for allegedly torturing prisoners in their charge. (CBS news link here.)

U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte dismissed L-3's claims that they are immune to civil lawsuits because they were working for the government in wartime. The judge said this was "not a valid basis for the defense."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

War - even a Just War - does not somehow magically remove a person from the world as it is. It does not make killing right. It does not make the enemy to be less than human. What it does is: acknowledge that I'm likely to end up killing someone who is trying to kill me and my countrymen, and that this evil is unavoidable in defending the innocent against attack.

Those who cite war as some extraordinary moral circumstance that turns evil into good have abandoned the Just War tradition, and have rejected the ancient Catholic teaching on the subject.

Partisanship and the faith

2010-07-28T20:12:00.000-07:00

I saw this image on Facebook today. It seemed to me to be the epitome of what happens when we let our political partisanship trump our Catholic faith.

After all, what does the sign mean when it says that Democrats are "soft on terrorists?" The ill-advised War on Terror continues, after all. People--our own countrymen and women among them--are still being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The present administration, for all of its pre-election promises of speedy withdrawal from these conflicts, has not delivered on these promises, and our young men and women remain in harm's way.

No, what the sign means, I think, is that Democrats are less enthusiastic about "enhanced interrogation" than Republicans, who will presumably appoint Jack Bauer as the Torture Czar if they win the White House in 2012.

Catholics, of course, should be enthusiasts for neither torture nor abortion. We should be able to say to both the Democrats and the Republicans, "No, sorry. We don't like abortion, and we also don't like torture. In fact, we think both of them are evil. We'd rather not vote for people who support these things at all."

But in our two-party system, saying such a thing means, of course, that the Baby-Killers and Terrorists Win. The fact that there are few Republicans willing to oppose ESCR, for example, is just a distraction--hey, at least Republicans are only supporting the death of the unborn if there's money to be made in medical research as a result of it, right?

I think we need to remember something, something that's going to be on a lot of people's minds as we approach election season:

Voting for the
lesser of two evils…
is still voting for evil.

Subsidiarity: a misunderstood principle of Catholic social morality

2010-07-20T18:06:00.001-07:00

Apparently, Louisiana has passed a law which allows those with permits to carry concealed guns to carry them in churches as well.

The law also permits churches to place a restriction where the law does not. From the AP article:

The law allows concealed handguns in churches, synagogues or mosques for those with a valid permit and training. It also says those with authority over a church have the final say in their church.

This actually strikes me as exactly the right balance for a government with no ecclesiastical ties. Why? The principle of subsidiarity.

Here is how the Catechism describes subsidiarity:

The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."(Centissimus Annus, 48)
...
The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

In other words, the State (in this case, Louisiana and the United States of America,) has no right to intervene beyond its own limits; for example, under the roof of a church. So, while adjudicating the civil right to keep and bear arms does indeed fall under the authority of the State, this authority holds only for the public sphere.

I would expect a court to uphold my right, for example, to forbid concealed weapons within my own residence, for example.

But setting "limits for state intervention" is merely one of the effects of subsidiarity; it is not its purpose. The purpose of subsidiarity is to keep different kinds of authority, and different levels of authority within those different kinds, in good order. Subsidiarity applies to families and corporations just as much as it does to governments.

(This, by the way, is what Deal Hudson gets wrong in his article at InsideCatholic. He seems to conflate subsidiarity and privatization. A private collectivism is just as inhumane as a public one. Not that I want to critique Gov. Christie - I don't know the man from Adam, so I'm in no place to judge. But Hudson's argument, at best, lacks sufficient proof.)

Keeping the different kinds of authority distinct and in orderly relationship with each other is a trick. It's true that a person owes very different kinds of allegiance to (for example) his parents, his boss, and his government. Sometimes, these authorities come into conflict, and sometimes they seem to overlap. (Another example: parents and government both have legitimate reasons to set educational standards.) And this is where subsidiarity helps out: the "lower" and more local authorities are the ones with direct authority; "higher" and more general authorities exist in order to support the work of the lower authorities.

So, in the example of education, the government's proper role is to support the parents, who are the ones who have primary and final authority over the education of their children.

And this brings me ever so tangentially to the purpose of this blog: the promotion of human dignity. There have been many arguments over capital punishment in the comments here. But it is subsidiarity the allows us to see clearly the Church's teaching.

The Church, after all, is a most general authority: she speaks to the nature of human life in the light of God's revelation. Her authority extends to those things that we all hold in common as creatures of God, saved through the blood of his Son, and called to perfect union with him. Therefore, the way she usually exercises her authority is through teaching and admonition.

The State has a very practical and concrete authority: it is charged with the preservation and promotion of the common good of a particular society (for example, Utah or Louisiana). It exercises its authority by promulgating laws and then enforcing those laws.

The Church has no authority over the State with regard to the on-the-ground decisions of how to enforce law and order. But the Church does have authority to teach and admonish the State (and it's legislators and agents) on the nature of human society and the nature of law and order.

So, the Church identifies capital punishment as a way that the State has legitimately exercised its authority in the past; but she also recognizes that (as with everything in this world shattered by original sin) capital punishment is not the ideal way to achieve order and good in human society. Therefore, she admonishes the State to be wary in using capital punishment - perhaps even to forgo it altogether - lest the cure become worse than the original illness. She shines the light of God's divinely revealed mercy on a justice that is so easily tempted by vengeance.

And yet, she does not declare that capital punishment is a sin. She notes that it is not irredeemably evil (as, for example, torture is). Rather, she exercises her own authority, in teaching and admonishing, in support of the State's exercise of it's proper authority.

Sorry about the long-windedness, but sometimes that's the only way for me to work through the muddiness to clarity.

Most Americans supported "enhanced interrogation"?

2010-07-08T20:22:00.000-07:00

Apparently not. Not at any point in Bush's presidency. Not in the Republican Party. Not in the military. Not in the red states or the flyover zone.

Gee, maybe us Yanks aren't as morally stupid as we seemed!

Here's the study, published in Cambridge University's Political Science and Politics

Here's the blog posting where I heard about it.

Ironically, shortly after Barack Obama became president, a majority of Americans (in some categories at least) did come to believe that torture or "enhanced interrogation" was permissible. There are many possible explanations for that, but it's clear to me that this is not merely a partisan game.

Paradoxical Patriotism

2010-07-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

Cross-posted from my personal blog, Virtue Quest:

I always feel awkward around the Independence Day holiday. I'm not by inclination a patriot, just as I'm not by inclination a church-goer. I am both these things because I've come to see that my own inclinations, or desires, or vices, have led me astray from reality.

So I recognize the honor that is due to the nation of my birth, and my own responsibility to be as good a citizen as I am able. I just have a hard time bringing any emotional *umph* to the celebration.

I also recognize that, while I'm inclined to focus on the naughtiness of my nation and my speculations on how it ought to change, there is a real need to celebrate what is good and true and virtuous in the United States of America. Perhaps it is especially important for someone like myself to participate in the celebration, exactly as a corrective to my own erroneous inclinations.
The virtue of patriotism

Thomas Aquinas does not list "patriotism" among the virtues, but he does note that all people are both subject to law and responsible for the good of society, and that Justice requires respect for authority and Charity requires action for the good of one's fellows. As he puts it,
Consequently, this very act of loving someone because he is akin or connected with us, or because he is a fellow-countryman or for any like reason that is referable to the end of charity, can be commanded by charity, so that, out of charity both eliciting and commanding, we love in more ways those who are more nearly connected with us. (ST II-II q26 a7)

These are what make up the essence of patriotism: loving one's country and fellow citizens exactly because they are one's fellows. It is closely related to the love of family, whom we do not choose but whom we must love anyway, whether we like it or not. Family and country are, in a sense, a school of charity; they teach us how to love even when loving is difficult.

Ironically (given the whoop-de-do about Church and State in this particular country), it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that, I think, states most clearly what patriotism is all about:
It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. (CCC 2239; emphasis in the original.)

What is critical, to me at least, about this approach is the balance it strikes: one's country is to be loved, but not because it is better or stronger or more worthy than any other nation; rather, exactly because it is one's own. I did not choose to be born an American; but I was, and it is as an American that I love the U.S.A. A Canadian or a Chinese might love the U.S.A. for some other reason. Perhaps they admire the American ideal, or perhaps they enjoy economic benefits from America, or any number of other reasons. But my own love of my country is founded simply on the fact that it is mine, or rather, that I belong to my country in a similar way that I belong to my family.

(I'm tempted to add a video of one of my favorite patriotic satires here, but instead I'll just provide a link.)
American virtues

So, given that it's not at all to my credit that I am American, what is it that I'll celebrate with grilling and fireworks and other forms of pyromania today?

First off, I'll celebrate the very good things I have myself received from the United States: a certain economic opportunity, even in difficult times such as these, to make ends meet without resorting to undignified or immoral work; a definite social opportunity to meet and converse with people from all walks of life and all regions of the country (and even the world), and to learn from their experiences; the English language which, thanks to American dominance following WW2 (augmenting the impact of English colonialism), has become a global language, giving me the advantage of communication with those I would otherwise have no connection; a political system that provides real opportunity (even if limited and corrupted by "special interests") to contribute to and impact the governance of the society I live in.

I'll also celebrate the genuine good that the United States has done in the world: through the citizens' works of charity, of scholarship, of invention; and through the occasionally wise governmental policies, such as developing our highway system or contributing to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after WW2.

Celebrating the good does not mean I stop critiquing the bad; it simply means I acknowledge that there is virtue to be found even among rampant vice. It means I extend to my country the same charity I extend to my neighbors and myself. I will celebrate my brother's birthday, even if my brother is a criminal; I will celebrate my friend's success, even if my friend is often a fool. So, although I am highly critical of many aspects of American politics and culture, I will celebrate America's birthday with both gratitude and joy. In other words, I will practice the virtue of patriotism, trusting that both I and my country will grow toward greater virtue through practice.

And besides, who can pass up an opportunity for grilled meat?

New topic, old news: Pius XII and bioethics

2010-06-21T22:15:00.000-07:00

Our reader Matthew pointed me toward an address given by Pope Pius XII to a group of psychologists and neuroscientists a-way back in 1952. In that address, the Holy Father proposes to

draw your attention to the limits of this field-not the limits of medical possibilities, of theoretical and practical medical knowledge, but the limits of moral rights and duties. ... We would like to set forth briefly the essential principles which permit an answer to be given to this question. (Emphasis in the original)

He distinguishes very clearly between the role of the Church and the role of doctors: the doctors are medical experts, and are responsible for the final judgment in particular cases. But the Church is the moral expert, providing the principles by which such a judgment can properly be made.

He also makes it clear that, just because the doctors possess moral expertise and even authority to make such judgments, their judgments are not infallible. They themselves must face a higher Judge who looks into the heart.

I wish I had time to comment on this address thoroughly, but for the present I will merely recommend it to anyone with questions about bioethical matters. While I'm not a big fan of "deontological" language, his presentation is clear and comprehensive. It forms an excellent foundation for all sorts of questions.

Two questions

2010-06-17T20:19:00.001-07:00

With the firing squad execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner less than two hours away, I want to ask two questions here:

1. Does the execution of Mr. Gardner meet the conditions specified in the Catechism for the use of the death penalty?

2. Is the use a firing squad today "cruel and unusual" as a method of execution?

Comment thread open for discussion.

UPDATE: Comments now closed.

Thinking out loud

2010-06-10T17:57:00.001-07:00

I'm thinking out loud in this post, so please bear with me.

Yesterday I started to think about the similarities and differences between parental punishment of children and the State's legitimate punishment of offenders. While there are, of course, important differences, some of the principles are the same: parents may not be cruel or abusive, the punishment, to be effective, ought to be suitable to the offense, and the punishment should have a twofold purpose: to restore order, and to provide the opportunity for the child to repent and be "rehabilitated" from his infraction.

To look at an example, suppose a child is playing with several other children and begins behaving badly (snatching toys away, pushing, yelling etc.). The mother enters the room, and conducts a sort of "mini trial," in which the infraction is investigated, blame assigned, and the guilty party identified. She then "sentences" the naughty child to sit on a chair by himself in another room for a specific period of time. He does not wish to do this--but he complies, knowing that the punishment will be worse if he does not. When his time of "incarceration" is over he returns to the game, and now the choice is his: to play by the rules and behave himself, or to act up again and risk further punishment.

Now, while the arrest and imprisonment of a grown man or woman is different in many ways, you still have a just authority, a trial to determine the truth, a sentence pronounced, and, usually, a prison sentence or other punishment determined. Again, the punishment is geared toward both justice and mercy, toward both removing the offender from society, the way the child was isolated from his peers, and toward giving the offender the opportunity to repent and be rehabilitated, and thus return to and remain in society.

How does the death penalty fit into this? The way I see it presently (though I'm open to correction), the death penalty is to be used when the State determines that only thus can society really be protected from the offender--that the offender has been an aggressor against innocent life, and has lost all his "chances" of the kind of rehabilitation that will allow him to return to society or even to continue his life among the society of the prison. I may be wrong, but I think it is possible that the death penalty's claim to consider the prisoner and be merciful to him lies in the notion that the final and severest mercy one can have toward the truly incorrigible aggressor is to force him to face his mortality in the light of his crimes and sins. This is not the reason the state may execute; the reason remains only to protect everyone else from this incorrigible aggressor who will not stop attacking and threatening his fellow men. But the Church would not, I think, condone a use of the death penalty which cut off the prisoner from spiritual guidance, from the Sacraments (if he is Catholic), or from similar exhortations to repent before repentance is forever impossible--which, to me, means that mercy to the prisoner is still, if somewhat paradoxically, intended.

But this sentence from CCC 2267 is important, too: "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

From this I get that the Church sees non-lethal means as "...more in conformity to the dignity of the human person..." which implies that the death penalty is necessarily less in conformity to that dignity. Far from being some kind of perfect means of punishment which ought to serve as the standard by which we measure all other means of punishment, the death penalty is a sorrowful necessity caused by our fallen nature, and by the possibility of incorrigible depravity and viciousness that lurks in the human soul.

How does this relate to torture?

I think that some people argue this way:

a) the Church permits the death penalty, to protect society.
b) there are times when torture (or something not-torture that would be torture if it were not justly necessary) would also protect society.
c) Torture (or the not-torture which is exactly like torture) is less extreme than putting someone to death.
d) Therefore, if the extreme of putting someone to death may be used to protect society, it follows that torture (or not-torture) must be permissible if it is being used in limited situations to protect society.

But the way the Church writes about the death penalty, she makes it clear that non-lethal means are "...more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person..." than the death penalty is. Like I said, then, the death penalty isn't the "model" of how we ought to punish the guilty--it is something sadly necessary because of our fallenness, but not something to be used indiscriminately, celebrated, or elevated as the standard of Christian punishment.

What should be the standard, to me, are those punishments that are more visibly ordered toward both justice and mercy, toward the protection of society and, simultaneously, toward the possibility of the repentance and rehabilitation of the prisoner.

And this means that so far from seeing a sort of "If the Church permits the death penalty, then the Church must permit torture..." framework, we could instead see it as "Though the Church must permit the death penalty in rare circumstances, we should remain mindful that the ordinary purpose of punishment, formed by considerations of justice and mercy, is to protect society from the aggressor while offering to the prisoner the opportunity for repentance and rehabilitation."

Thoughts? Clarifications?

Moral principles

2010-06-08T18:18:00.000-07:00

I'm mainly writing this new post because I'm tired of scrolling through over 100 comments on Red's challenge below. So please feel free to continue here other discussions started there.

In the comments, reader Matthew offers the following suggested definition as an alternative to those already offered on this blog and elsewhere:

"Torture is the unjust use of extreme mental or physical violence which degrades the human person. Examples of this would be the use of physical and mental violence against prisoners when the end is not justified, for reasons such as revenge, humiliation or to extract information from someone when their probable guilt to immediate threats to innocent human life are not at stake. This would not include proportionate means of physical and mental violence done by the State for the just purposes of self defense or for exacting retributive punishment, including Capital Punishment. Even the just use of physical and moral violence would be limited to the proportion of the crime committed in the classification of the State's right and obligation to keep the moral order and to exact retributive punishment. In the case of the State' right to protect innocents in the act of self defense, actions such as amputating limbs or taking the violence past the rational faculties can never be done."

Now, I love the first sentence of this definition. I agree with it one hundred percent. I find it concise, clear, and useful for practical application.

Then it turns consequentialist. That is to say, it stipulates that the end justifies the means. The end of preventing "immediate threats to innocent human life" allows us to "degrade the human person" of whomever happens to be in custody at the moment.

This same Matthew also asks for discussion of moral principles. So I will lay out my own understanding of foundational Catholic moral principles, which I hope will show exactly why consequentialism is a serious problem. I'll try not to be too long-winded.

First, I start where St. Thomas Aquinas started, and where the Catechism starts: with the purpose of human life. Our entire reason for being is to enter into that eternal communion with God which is usually called Heaven. In a word: happiness.

Our happiness entails acting according to our nature as God created us, and answering our supernatural call. Morality is the entire realm of human activity. A "moral" act is one that accords with nature and answers our vocation. An "immoral" act is one that is contrary to nature and/or to God's call.

Virtues are habits of action that support us in our natural and supernatural life. Vices are habits that reinforce the damage and stain of original sin, separating us from Life Himself.

Sin is a particular act that separates us, either venially or mortally, from God.

Law is a support to virtue in (at least) three ways: first, making known the order and purpose of creation, and of ourselves within it; second, warning us against acts that threaten our happiness; third, providing direct consequence for such vicious actions.

I know this is a cursory and abstract presentation, but I hope it is enough to keep the conversation moving forward.

Let me just leap over all the intervening steps and say, the reason torture is intrinsically evil is that it is impossible to degrade any human person and at the same time be acting in accordance with the nature God gave us, or the supernatural life to which he calls us. It is always and unchangeably sinful.

Docs in the torture chamber?

2010-06-07T18:18:00.001-07:00

The NYTimes reports on a statement from Physicians for Human Rights regarding the roles of medical personnel during C.I.A. waterboarding sessions. The accusation is that the doctors and others were engaging in illicit research on human subjects. The doctors were monitoring the prisoners during waterboarding and making suggestions as to how to increase and "calibrate" the "effectiveness" of the techniques.

That meant that the medical professionals crossed the line from treating the detainees as patients to treating them as research subjects, the report asserted.

Seems to me that calling it "research" can be misleading; these were not laboratory conditions, and no one seems eager to publish any "findings."

But the point is well made: these doctors are not treating patients. They are advising and assisting in the torture of prisoners. Somehow, I don't think that's in keeping with the Hippocratic Oath.

Bagram airbase's "black prison"

2010-06-05T17:08:00.000-07:00

Here's a quick history and status report on the prison at the U.S. Army airfield at Bagram, Afghanistan.

After all, it's Torture Awareness Month all month long! Let's keep ourselves aware: the waterboarding may have stopped, but other highly questionable techniques are known to remain in place, e.g., sleep deprivation and "isolation."

It's not clear to me whether this "isolation" is a temporary solitary confinement (which could have, under certain circumstances, a legitimate penal use) or whether it's a long-term isolation from human contact, which attacks the fundamentally social nature of the human person.

In any case, extended and involuntary sleep deprivation is definitely an attack on the dignity of the human person.

Pro-torture people: post your best pro-torture argument here

2010-06-03T16:07:00.000-07:00

Okay, so apparently some of the people who think that the Church is wrong about torture and that torture ought to remain a morally legitimate option for the State to use feel as though their arguments have not been addressed. I'm opening this thread for pro-torture people to put their best arguments forward in answer to the following question:

The Catholic Church teaches, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the following:

"2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

If you believe that the use of torture by the State is not gravely evil, but instead, a property of the State's authority to defend its citizens, to punish the guilty, etc., how do you read the Catechism passage above, and other, similar Church statements, and how does the notion that torture is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity fit with your view that torture nonetheless remains a morally valid option to be used by State authorities?

As arguments are posted, I will do my best to collect from the best responses by Zippy, Mark Shea, and others that address each argument. In the event that someone proposes a truly innovative and new argument, I will highlight that argument and ask for responses from Coalition members.

It's Torture Awareness Month - and I wasn't even aware of it!

2010-06-03T12:21:00.000-07:00

According to a couple different sources, June is Torture Awareness Month.

Now, anyone can simply declare any month "Something-or-other Month" and I haven't figured out who has declared June to be Torture Awareness Month. But I'm guessing it's intended to highlight June 26th as the anniversary of the U.N. Convention against Torture.

So I'm all in favor of raising awareness of torture issues this month. Let's all be aware!

Bush would waterboard again

2010-06-03T12:01:00.001-07:00

Former president George W. Bush says he'd waterboard KSM again:

GEORGE Bush has admitted that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded during his administration and said he wouldn't hesitate to give the order again.
“Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” the former US President told the Economic Club of Grand Rapids in Michigan.
“I’d do it again to save lives.”
Mr Bush also defended his decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, calling the attacks on September 11, 2001 “a declaration of war on our country”.
“Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him,” he said.

Amazing.

What is the role of the State?

2010-06-02T23:26:00.000-07:00

I'm cross-posting this both on my personal blog and on the Coalition for Clarity, because it's the rare topic that fits both topics pretty well.

On Virtue Quest, I've been blogging about my reading of Alisdair MacIntyre's "classic," After Virtue. At the Coalition, I've raised the question of what the basis is for actions permitted to agents of the State that are forbidden to private citizens, such as capital punishment and war. So, toward the end of After Virtue, I ran across this passage:

But my present point is not that patriotism is good or bad as a sentiment, but that the practice of patriotism is in advanced societies no longer possible in the way that it once was. In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear. Patriotism is or was a virtue founded on attachment primarily to a political and moral community and only secondarily to the government of that community; but it is characteristically exercised in discharging responsibility to and in such government. ... Loyalty to my country, to my community - which remains unalterably a central virtue - becomes detached from obedience to the government which happens to rule me.

Now, I'm far from being in easy agreement with everything that MacIntyre says - or even with most of it. But his distinction between "political community" and "government" struck me as exactly the sort of thing that I have argued in saying that the State as embodied in modern nation-states is not necessarily the same kind of beast as the State as embodied in the variety of forms known to, e.g., Thomas Aquinas.

Here is how the very modern Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1910) describes the role of the State:

It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

I'm still reading through what Thomas has to say about the State, but my impression thus far is that the power of the State derives from its responsibility for goods that are common to society and therefore beyond the power of any single person as such. And the Catechism agrees, at least insofar as its authority is bound to the common good and does not bind whenever an agent of the State acts against the common good. Or, in a saying at least as old as Augustine of Hippo, an unjust law is no law at all.

Now, the first thing that almost everything I've read says about the authority of the State is that is "orders" things to the common good. That is, it resolves what is otherwise disordered and chaotic when left to individual persons or families. This is clearly the source of authority for laws and lawmaking. It also is fairly clearly the source of authority to tax or conscript, that is, to call individuals to a duty owed to society.

Now, I myself have to this point held the opinion that war and capital punishment are simply "public" forms of self-defense. In other words, I've assumed that the State does not have any "rights" or authority that is essentially beyond what is given to individuals; the authority of the State is simply exercised on a larger scale, with broader consequences. Yet almost everything I am reading implies or assumes that the State's role of ordering things to the common good extends to acts that are different in kind from the moral responsibilities of individuals.

So I'm left with a couple questions at the end of this rather rambling post:

First, does a radical difference in the structure of government make a real difference in the relationship of individual persons to the State (such that Patriotism is no longer the same thing, for example), and in the role or authority of the State itself?

Second, does responsibility for the common good extend to acts that are beyond the normal scope of morality as applied to persons taken singly?

Justice, mercy, and the death penalty

2010-05-28T16:16:00.000-07:00

What should Catholics think about the death penalty?

Unlike the issues of the morality of torture, abortion, and euthanasia, the death penalty is an issue that Catholics can disagree about in good faith. It must be said from the starting point of any discussion about the death penalty that the Church recognizes the authority of the State to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, and that in the pursuit of this goal the State may sentence a criminal to die, and carry out that awful sentence.

But I think in our deliberations about whether the death penalty ought to be used, and under what conditions, we'd be remiss to ignore the Catechism, which says:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.⁶⁷
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.^NT

That last point, of course, comes from Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelicum Vitae. The death penalty is addressed a few times in that letter, particularly here:

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".[46] Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.[47]
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[48]

I personally struggled to embrace this view of the death penalty. For a long time I saw it only as a matter of meting out to violent murderers their "just desserts." I ignored tales of innocent people being executed (or released from Death Row years after being convicted), and of the disproportionate justice offered to the wealthy, who could afford expensive lawyers, and the poor, who had not these means to defend themselves against criminal charges. I didn't think about that corporal work of mercy which orders us to visit the imprisoned, or consider the impact on the souls of victims' families when they would publicly demand the death of the criminal as a kind of revenge for their suffering and loss.

Surprisingly enough, it was a purely secular source that led me to rethink my position in favor of the use of the death penalty as it is used here and now, in 21st century America. It was the late Erle Stanley Gardner's book, The Court of Last Resort, that first made me rethink my assumptions in favor of the death penalty. At the time I read this book, I'd been presented with Catholic arguments against the death penalty--I had just rejected them as "liberal" without really thinking about them. Mr. Gardner's book, detailing cases where men were waiting to die when there really was reasonable doubt that they were guilty--and in some cases, abundant evidence that they couldn't possibly be guilty--made me think about the issue in a new way.

Death, after all, is irrevocable. If an innocent man is executed, there is nothing that can be done to remedy the matter. But if a guilty one merely lives out the rest of his life in prison--who, exactly, is harmed? Society is not harmed--because we can't execute prisoners merely to avoid the cost of housing them. Society would only be harmed if the incarceration were lacking and the prisoner continued to hurt or kill people while behind bars--which does happen, and must be addressed.

Let's begin the conversation, respecting each other's views. The death penalty is not something that is morally evil--but is it imprudent, often unjust, and at odds, ultimately, with the Christian idea of mercy?

Human trafficking - another assault on human dignity

2010-05-27T17:33:00.000-07:00

Here's one I hope we can all agree on: the "trade" of people, especially of impoverished women, is a crime that cries out to heaven.

Major global events which draw large crowds from around the world also hide a dirty secret: the trafficking of people, essentially kidnapped into slavery, and often used for prostitution.

I first noticed the news covering this story around the last Super Bowl and around the Olympics in Vancouver. Now, the bishops are raising concerns about the World Cup. I'd guess that the Shanghai World Exposition has its share of forced labor and imported prostitution as well, though I haven't heard anything on the news.

Again, I'm in the sorry position of having more questions than answers. I don't know what steps we might take to protect the vulnerable or to reduce the demand for such inhumanity. But it's something to think and pray about.

Is the State a Person?

2010-05-26T14:10:00.001-07:00

First off, I'd like to apologize - particularly to Red - for my recent absence from the blog. I have a number of explanations which do not really add up to an excuse.

I'm fascinated by the comments on Red's post on the Fifth Commandment. I'm particularly interested in the arguments that the State has an authority to act which goes beyond the authority of any of its members.

The State, in the examples given, has the authority to execute prisoners and to wage war. No mere citizen has that authority. A person only is able to execute or wage war upon another person when acting as an agent of the State.

Now, I'm not in any way an expert on politics, or even on political philosophy. But it's clear to me that "The State" had rather a different implication in the mind of St. Thomas Aquinas than it does for us today. Today, we generally assume a constitutionally founded, geographically defined, internationally recognized nation-state, with recognizable institutions for legislative and executive functions. Thomas could have had none of those assumptions. In his day, the State would have ranged from more-or-less independent city-states to feudal regions to monarchies, all of which argued (and even warred) over borders, relationships, and dues. Moreover, the Church had a more political profile in his day, arguing with civil leaders about the authority to appoint bishops and to crown rulers.

So, although I have the highest respect for Thomas's philosophy and theology, I would consider it a betrayal of his thought to simply accept his statements about the State and it's role and authority without further examination.

So I ask, what is the basis of the State's authority, from the standpoint of the Church? And then, what does this imply about the State's authority to act in such ways as, for example, to defend its borders or to execute criminals or to regulate migration?

For the record, I don't yet have answers to these questions. Nor do I expect that there is only a single form of government that would meet the requirements of Catholic moral teaching. And furthermore this may just plain be too abstract a topic for this policy-focused blog. But consider it an introduction, and feel free to give me pointers toward texts I might not have met yet myself.

Torture is torture

2010-05-21T20:21:00.000-07:00

An excellent new editorial by Sean P. Daily for Gilbert Magazine tackles the issue of torture:

Those who see abortion as an evil are often frustrated by those who attempt to justify abortion by vague arguments about “choice” or even more practical arguments about exceptions for rape or incest, or the health of the mother. But many of these same people lose their moral clarity when the subject is torture. Suddenly they are the ones bringing up exceptions and parsing definitions.

There is so much confusion over this issue that in a recent TV interview, a prominent Catholic journalist let a former Bush Administration speechwriter, also a Catholic, grossly misrepresent Catholic teaching in a shameful apologia for torture.

Let us re-establish clarity. Torture, whether physical or psychological, is a barbaric, savage act, not justifiable under any circumstances, and unworthy of a civilized society.
But don’t take our word for it. For those readers who are religious, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America began calling for America to cease torturing prisoners more than a year ago. American Episcopal bishops agree, as do other Protestant denominations. For our Catholic readers, Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “I reiterate that the prohibition against torture cannot be contravened under any circumstances.” The Catholic Church draws no distinction between physical and psychological torture.

For those readers who aren’t religious, we turn to U.S. law and international law, where torture is, without exception, condemned. Not one state or municipal law enforcement agency permits it. The Army Field Manual, which regulates interrogations by the U.S. military, prohibits torture. So does the Geneva Convention—a treaty to which both the Holy See and the United States are signatories. None of these institutions or documents draws any distinction between physical and psychological torture either. For all, torture is torture.

Read the whole thing here.

Is it still "enhanced interrogation" if someone else does it?

2010-05-21T20:11:00.000-07:00

Is "enhanced interrogation" okay if the Iraqi government is the one alleged to do it?:

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The corpses of at least three of the six Sunni Muslim detainees who died while in Iraqi government custody earlier this month showed signs of torture, their families said Thursday as they vowed revenge at emotionally charged funerals.
Iraqi authorities announced an investigation into the suffocation deaths of six men who were being transported on May 12 in a poorly ventilated truck en route to appear before an investigative committee in Baghdad. The families said they were informed the men died in a "shipping container." [...]
Relatives of three of the dead detainees spoke to McClatchy Newspapers on condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation against other family members still in government custody. In accounts that couldn't be verified independently, the families all described similar findings upon receiving the bodies of the men:
-Salah Jaata al-Nimrawi, 46, a captain in the former regime's army, fought against al-Qaida as a member of the U.S.-backed "Awakening" movement. His family said U.S. forces detained him 21/2 years ago in connection with a roadside bomb attack in Hit. The family said they received his corpse this week with a blackened eye, crude stitches on his torso, a broken hand and signs of torture on his fingers and feet.
-Murad Jalil Jassim, 27, of Ramadi, was detained in 2005 after a roadside bomb exploded on the same highway he was driving, relatives said. Relatives said his family paid bribes to retrieve his body from the Baghdad morgue and discovered suspicious holes on his neck, cigarette burns on his back and other signs of abuse.
-Mushtaq Talib al-Janabi, 35, a teacher from Fallujah, was detained by Iraqi forces last summer because he was driving a white truck, which violated a citywide ban on such vehicles after reports that some were being rigged with explosives, his family said. Relatives received his body this week and observed signs of electrical burns on his thighs and cigarette burns on his torso.

I am sure that some of the Catholic defenders of torture will rush to tell me that the relatives are probably lying, and that objecting to prisoners being burned with cigarettes is a sign of weak-sister liberalism, and that these guys probably had really important information which they refused to share, and--and--what do I want, anyway, for "detainees" like these to be treated to a four-star hotel experience?

Or--maybe not. Maybe Catholic defenders of torture really do think it's only okay when "our guys" are doing it. Maybe they'll condemn these alleged acts as the sort of thing no Christian ought ever to do--without, for a minute, seeing the irony in that.

Reflections on the fifth commandment

2010-05-14T14:57:00.000-07:00

It occurred to me as I was reading the conversation going on between a couple of commenters in this thread that it might be a good idea to have a little discussion about the fifth commandment as it relates to matters like torture and similar human life/human dignity issues.

The principle "It is always wrong directly and intentionally to take the life of an innocent human being," is often cited; I think it sums up the fifth commandment rather nicely, at least as regards being able to determine why certain things are wrong. For example, both abortion and euthanasia are always wrong because in both the life of an innocent human being is directly and intentionally taken--but if an ectopic pregnancy must be removed, or if an elderly person undergoes surgery which unfortunately fails to provide healing but instead hastens death, in neither case is the death of the innocent person directly intended.

But an additional point is provided in CCC 2269, under the discussion of homicide: "The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger."

So, how is it possible that the Catechism spells out so clearly that it is always wrong directly or indirectly to take the life of an innocent human being--and yet the Catechism allows for the possibility that a person may kill another in various circumstances without incurring any moral penalty?

The key word in the discussion of both direct and intentional killing and and indirect, intentional killing is, I believe, the word "innocent." There is no circumstance where it might be morally permissible to kill, or to allow to die through indirect action willed toward the person's death, an innocent human being.

In the situation where a person is an aggressor, threatening the life of another, the principle of self-defense may permit the use of lethal force to stop the aggressor. The Catechism puts it this way:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not." (65)

Then in the discussion about war (in which the "just war" doctrine's principles are restated) and in the discussion about the death penalty, these issues, too, are framed as matters of self-defense, where the "self" in question includes one's nation in the event of war, or of society as a whole in the event that society can't defend the innocent without executing the criminal.

I find this interesting, because not only is the word "innocent" important, but so is the word "intentional." In other words, one may defend oneself (and by extension one's country and one's society) from unjust aggressors using force up to and including lethal force, but only, it would appear, because the principle of double-effect applies, in that the killing of the aggressor is the unintentional, secondary effect and the preservation of innocent life is the primary one.

But because we are talking about a double-effect scenario, it follows that not only may the death of the aggressor not be sought for its own sake, nor desired as the outcome, nor held to be a good, but also that the death of the aggressor is not morally permissible in circumstances where a lesser restraint against him which does not cause his death is possible. What does that mean?

For starters, it would mean that something like this would be completely impossible from a moral perspective. Anwar Al-Awlaki may be plotting against the United States, and there may be a completely legitimate need to stop him from doing this. But plotting acts of aggression and actively carrying out such acts are two different things; it may be necessary to shoot a terrorist who is attempting to walk into a crowded restaurant while wearing a bomb because he is actively attempting to kill innocent people, but it would not be necessary to place snipers on the roof of the terrorist's apartment building because intelligence suggests that he might be considering such an act. There are plenty of ways to stop him from carrying out his planned attack without necessitating his death, and the moral law is clear: when non-lethal means of self-defense remain an option, the defender has an obligation to make use of those means before resorting to lethal ones, which must be considered a last resort.

It is true that in many self-defense scenarios, a person seeking to preserve his life may not have the ability to assess the situation calmly and correctly before using lethal means. This is true in home-invasion situations, on the battlefield, and in other situations where it simply isn't possible to tell whether non-lethal means will work to stop the aggressor before resorting to potentially lethal ones. But no one has the right to seek to kill an aggressor intentionally--and the duty to assess the situation and come up with non-lethal means to stop the aggression grows the further removed from a direct attack the situation becomes.

I bring up all of this because it is sometimes said, "We have the right to kill someone in self-defense. If we can kill him, we can certainly torture him for the same reason." But as the Catechism makes clear, we do not have a right to kill anyone, in self-defense or otherwise. We have the right to protect ourselves from an aggressor, up to and including the use of lethal force. But it is protection, not the death of the aggressor, which is willed; the death of the aggressor is the unintended and undesired consequence in this double-effect case.

And there is no possible way that it can become morally right to torture someone on the grounds of self-defense, because torture is always a direct and intentional act. Attempts to frame the use of torture in double-effect terms will always fail, because the protection of the innocent does not permit the defender to inflict pain and suffering, directly and intentionally, on the human being who is not actively threatening him but is instead wholly in his power and at his mercy.

Bishop Slattery on Immigration

2010-05-07T19:08:00.000-07:00

I agree with the bishop completely:

Illegal immigration is an issue which concerns every American; but the issues are complex and unless we are willing to recognize the fundamental human rights with which the Creator endows each individual - and enact laws which respect those human rights - our legislative response to the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigration will be the creation of an underclass of hunted, marginalized families, whose children belong neither to this country nor to the land of their parents.

It is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that sovereign nations have the right to control their borders; but the corollary of this teaching must also be upheld: when our nation’s demand for labor attracts a massive number of potential immigrants, the United States must do what it can to establish an orderly process whereby needed workers can enter the country in a legal, safe and dignified manner to obtain jobs or to reunite themselves with family members.
However in recent years, the federal government has neither protected the sovereignty of our borders, nor has it provided a realistic means for workers to enter the country legally. Instead it has allowed millions of immigrants to enter the country illegally for the sake of our economy; while leaving it to state and local governments to deal with the resultant chaos of millions of valuable workers who have no legal identity, no automobile insurance (and are unable to obtain it), no health coverage (with no funds to pay for it) and no means of acquiring legal residency.
These workers are not unknown to us. They live in our neighborhoods and pray with us at Mass. We benefit every day from their labor in framing and painting our houses, roofing our office buildings, finishing new cement for us, harvesting and processing our food, and serving us in our restaurants. These men and women broke the law by entering the country illegally; but they did this with the tacit permission of the federal government and most have since become part of the fabric of everyday life in America.

Read the whole thing.

An interesting post

2010-05-05T15:52:00.001-07:00

As we continue pondering the topic of immigration, I'd like to point out this very interesting blog post by Jack Smith at the Catholic Key:

It is not the “strangers” from Mexico, the Philippines, China or Vietnam, almost all of which have a very solid grasp on gender and are happy to work hard at the many small, often family businesses they run who would regard Sparks as “too conservative”.

Actually, the “strangers” who have loused up San Francisco, and indeed California, are immigrants from other states. The massive immigration in the 1950s to the 1970s of rootless individuals from other states seeking to find themselves or lose themselves in San Francisco has turned a once great, and once very Catholic, city into an embarrassing freak show. From the transsexual sex toy salesman Theresa Sparks (Kansas City) to the abortion queens Barbara Boxer (Brooklyn) and Nancy Pelosi (Baltimore) to psychopaths like Jim Jones (Indiana) to the intolerant gay narcissists Tom Ammiano (New Jersey) and Mark Leno (Milwaukee), nearly every kind of nut in California shares in common being a white, native born American from another state (Mayor Gavin Newson, admittedly, is a native San Franciscan).

I used to joke that California doesn’t need a wall along its Southern border, but along the Sierra Nevada. [...]
Similar scenes are common throughout other immigrant communities in the City. In the Mission, an impossible number of taquerias, carnicerias, groceries, panaderias and other small businesses are manned by Mexicans and other Latinos (legal and not). In a City which has the lowest number of children per capita of any American city (SF literally has more dogs than children), a single parish in the Mission, St. Peter's, has over 400 baptisms a year. A largely Hispanic parish south of San Francisco had 500 First Communions last week. I'll bet those statistics are alarming to some people. To me, they are a glimmer of hope and a sign of life in a city otherwise intent on suicide. I'll take the culture and fecundity of the Mexicans over the alternatives in the Mission - like the massive BDSM porn factory in the former San Francisco Armory or the useless, unemployed, pasty-white, pierced, art/activist/anarchist “community” which also finds a home in the Mission. [All links in original--E.M.]

This is an interesting viewpoint, and one that it makes sense to discuss: if America were a healthy nation with a healthy culture, would there be the "gaps" in labor, population etc. that immigrants, legal or not, are coming here to fill?

Human dignity and the immigrant

2010-05-03T16:17:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when Catholics read the news, it can seem like America's Catholic bishops are all too eager to support the idea that the USCCB is really just the Democratic Party at prayer.

Take the recent statement posted on the USCCB's website, written by Bishop John C. Wester, on Arizona's new immigration law, which reads in part:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I join with the Catholic bishops of Arizona in strongly opposing the enactment and implementation of Arizona SB 1070. This new law, although limited to the State of Arizona, could have impact throughout the nation, in terms of how members of our immigrant communities are both perceived and treated.

SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity. It could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens and permanent residents as well as the division of families—parents from children and husbands from wives. It certainly would lead to the rise in fear and distrust in immigrant communities, undermining the relationships between their members and law enforcement officials.

If you stopped there, you'd miss what to me is possibly the most important paragraph in the statement--the one that comes next:

SB 1070 is symptomatic of the absence of federal leadership on the issue of immigration. For years now, the U.S. Catholic bishops have called upon Congress and two Administrations to enact meaningful and just comprehensive immigration reform.

As Robert mentioned in his earlier post, the Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with immigration in CCC 2241:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

It seems to me that the Catechism passage shows the sort of balance that needs to take place between the rights of the immigrant and the rights of the common good of the residents of the country to which he aspires to move. A nation does have the right to control its borders, to regulate immigration, and to establish just laws and reasonable penalties for the breaking of those laws. At the same time, the immigrant who comes to that nation in violation of those laws does not somehow lose his right to be treated like a human being; he should not wander in a kind of legal limbo, forbidden to work or to put a roof over his head on the one hand, but ignored by the authorities responsible for enforcing immigration laws on the other.

When I read this summary of SB 1070, the Arizona law in question, I found some parts of it reasonable, most particularly the degree to which the law seems to reflect frustration on the part of Arizona's lawmakers that the federal efforts to curb illegal immigration have, thus far, been so laughably ineffective. Unfortunately, I also see some of the things that worry the U.S. bishops on this, including:

--the chance of racial profiling
--the provision which essentially makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to work
--the provision which permits immigration status to be investigated when "determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state..." among other things.

What this could mean is that those currently present illegally in Arizona might find their families at risk of homelessness and hunger, without any means either via honest work or with the help of public programs to alleviate these ills.

It is true that those entering our country do not have the moral right, except in rare circumstances when to remain in their own country would mean loss of life, to come here in violation of our immigration laws. But once they are here, we do not have the right to treat them without regard to their human dignity, which allows them to work and to survive. This is especially true when it is the injustice of our laws which turn, too often, a blind eye toward the "recruitment" of illegal immigrants by employers in agriculture, food production, food services, construction, hospitality, landscaping, retail, and dozens of other businesses, many of them large corporations, while "cracking down" on the individual man or woman who is here illegally.

And though there are laws against hiring illegals, the penalties are often rather weak--fines that range from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per employee, for example. What is that to a company that may be saving millions of dollars a year by hiring employees who don't need to be paid the minimum wage and aren't subject to any of the "rights of workers" laws designed to protect workers--and who can't belong to any union?

For now, the bottom line for me is that while I sympathize with the frustration that helped create the Arizona law, I think that the enforcement efforts are disproportionately aimed at the wrong people: the individual illegal immigrant, who may be married to an American citizen and have American citizens for children, in some cases. The majority of the effort to reform immigration law needs, in my opinion, to be aimed at those corporations who are willing to flout our nation's laws on immigration again and again in order to increase their profits and satisfy their Wall Street investors--because until that happens, these employers will continue to create a demand for illegal workers. And as long as there is demand, does anyone doubt that there will continue to be a steady supply?

If you're in the Seattle area...

2010-05-03T13:17:00.000-07:00

Blessed Sacrament Parish is offering a presentation on moral and effective interrogation techniques. Behold:

"How to Break a Terrorist" by Matthew Alexander

Join us for a presentation by Matthew Alexander on the immorality and ineffectiveness of torture. Alexander spent 14 years as a US Air Force interrogator, and was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq. He is a national figure and the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.

Saturday, May 22 at 7:30 PM in the church. For more information contact Nina Butorac at 206-732-7351.

The dignity of the migrant

2010-04-29T13:58:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity, about a year ago, to have dinner with Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, the chair of the US Bishops' Committee on Migrants and Refugees. He was about to give a talk on the issue of "illegal" or "undocumented" immigrants, and our duties as Catholics.

What struck me about him was how clearly he saw the role of the Church in this very political matter.

The Church has the obligation to call government to pay attention to principles of morality, particularly the principle of the intrinsic dignity of every human person. She also has the obligation, through all her members, to show each person the care and respect due to him or her as a child of God.

The question of immigration is one that, from a Catholic point of view, is open to a great deal of debate. Erin cites the Catechism 2241, which says:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

So, what sort of "juridical conditions" are appropriate? What kinds of enforcement are valid for those who don't meet those "juridical conditions"?

In the interest of clarity - the main topic of this blog, after all - I would suggest a minimal starting point. First, any position that denies the basic human rights of any person, including those who have not met the U.S.'s "juridical conditions" for immigration, is beyond the pale of Catholic teaching. We have, both as individuals and as a society the privilege and obligation of recognizing and protecting their dignity as persons. No one ceases to be human just by crossing a border.

Second, any positions that denies the state the ability to regulate its borders or to impose "juridical conditions" of any kind also falls outside the realm of Catholic teaching. The government is charged with the common good of society, and each of us has a responsibility to care for our fellows as well as ourselves.

In our conversation, I agreed with Bishop Wester that the ideal would be for every immigrant to be properly processed and authorized; but that is not the situation we live in right now.

With regard to the new Arizona law, I must plead ignorance of the details. I'll look more into it and let you know what I find. But my first-glance impression is that it's probably an imprudent law, even if not strictly speaking an immoral law. What I've heard most is that it opens the way to racist mistreatment of Hispanic people. I'd be surprised if the law explicitly allows any such thing, but I would easily believe that it could make prosecution of racist law officers more difficult.

More to come, I'm sure.

Matters of human life and dignity

2010-04-28T16:32:00.000-07:00

When this blog was first established, there were some people not associated with it who commented that they thought the title of the blog was unfortunate. Wouldn't "Catholics against Torture" or some similar name be better?

I didn't think so, for two reasons. First, I think that Catholics are morally obligated to oppose torture. Granted, the arguments are usually about what exactly constitutes torture, and whether so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques qualify as torture, and how close to that line called "torture" we can get before we've violated the moral law, etc.--but there have been some Catholics who have responded to survey questions etc. claiming to be in favor of torture, not of any of the supposed gray areas.

So "Catholics against Torture" would be a name rather like "Catholics against Abortion" or "Catholics against Adultery;" there's a sort of, if you'll forgive the colloquialism, "Well, duh..." factor to those kinds of names.

But the second reason I didn't want to go with a name like "Catholics against Torture" was that I realized that the torture issue has a tendency to wax and wane in the public eye, so to speak; I fully expect it to be spoken about quite a bit in the lead-up to the November elections, for instance, but just now it does not seem to be a burning topic of conversation.

And, let's face it: torture is not the only issue on which clarity in light of Church teaching is a good thing to try to achieve.

Take, for instance, the present furor surrounding the new Arizona immigration law. On the one hand, some Catholics (like this one) applaud the law. On the other, several Catholic bishops are denouncing the law. How should a Catholic approach the issue of immigration? How do we read CCC 2241, and how do we apply it in practical reality?

I'm going to be writing about this in the near future, and my co-blogger, Robert King, will also be tackling some issues like this one, issues which impact matters of life and human dignity and on which we, as Catholics, seek moral clarity, with reference to the teaching and guidance of the Church. I have amended the blog's statement of purpose to reflect that we will be discussing issues other than torture, though the blog's main reason to exist is still to provide a place for Catholics to discuss the torture issue whenever that issue becomes prominent.

Wait and see...

2010-04-27T16:13:00.000-07:00

Goings on at Gitmo, via the Washington Independent:

What happens this week at Guantanamo will determine whether Obama’s pledge that the new, revised military commissions can deliver internationally-recognized justice is meaningful: the pre-trial hearing in Khadr’s case will provide the first in-depth examination of whether Khadr’s treatment in U.S. custody amounts to torture; will determine whether prosecutors can use evidence against him acquired under abusive, coercive circumstances that civilian courts would never allow; and whether additional statements made by Khadr in subsequent and less-coercive circumstances are fair game or inextricable from his overall abuse.

I think it's a fair question to ask. President Obama claims to oppose torture, but has backpedaled on closing Gitmo, and his "reforms" of the military commissions have not proven themselves yet.

Coming from a Catholic perspective, it doesn't matter to me which party holds the White House; I care far more about their policies. President Obama has shown himself to be a friend of abortion providers and therefore an enemy of the human dignity of the unborn. He has promised to be an enemy of torture advocates and thus a friend of the human dignity of prisoners.

My prayer is twofold: first, that he will indeed follow through on his commitment to defend the rights of those we have taken prisoner; and second, that his commitment to human dignity in one case will lead him to recognize the dignity of all human beings - even those who are inconvenient to his political base.

Court grants habeas corpus to prisoners

2010-04-22T10:57:00.000-07:00

This really should be a no-brainer: you can't break the law to enforce the law. When you try, you end up fighting yourself.

So it's no surprise that the courts are siding with the prisoners in these cases, since our military and intelligence community have disregarded the law in detaining and interrogating them.

For those (like me) who slept through high school civics, a writ of Habeas Corpus is essentially legal proof that an authority (e.g., the police) has the right to detain someone. The idea is that anyone can demand such a writ, and this places the burden of proof on the detaining authority rather than on the prisoner. It's similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

A credibility gap

2010-04-20T11:35:00.000-07:00

Well, this is ironic--the author is Marc Thiessen:

Can an unborn child feel pain?

That question will dominate the abortion debate in America for the next several years thanks to Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska. Last week, Heineman signed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act into law, banning abortions in Nebraska at and after 20 weeks based on growing scientific evidence that an unborn child at that age can feel pain.[...]
How did the pro-life position gain 18 percentage points in just 15 years? For one thing, scientific advances have allowed us to see inside the womb as never before. Once-experimental medical procedures, such as fetal surgery to repair spina bifida, have become increasingly common. And a 1999 photo of baby Samuel Armas, then at 21 weeks gestation, reaching out of his mother's womb and holding his doctor's finger touched millions of hearts around the world. People have been able to witness with their own eyes the humanity of the unborn child.

As this window into the womb was opening, the pro-choice movement was busy defending the gruesome practice of "partial birth" abortion. A ban on the practice was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. Now, thanks to the people of Nebraska, the national debate will shift to the topic of "fetal pain," which once again underscores the humanity of the unborn.

As this debate unfolds, science will continue to advance, allowing us to see -- and save -- babies at earlier and earlier periods of gestation. And the consensus will continue to grow that pre-born babies are indeed human beings, deserving of our love, our compassion and, most important, our protection.

I don't disagree with anything Mr. Thiessen writes here. I, too, think that opening our eyes to the reality of life in the womb is the best way to convince people of the value of these lives.

But the fact that Mr. Thiessen, who firmly believes that grown-up terrorists can feel pain and that we should inflict that pain on them to gain our own ends and that some of them are going to thank us for it, is the author of this piece illustrates the problems with being a pro-life, pro-terror Catholic. Frankly, there's a credibility gap when a man asks, "Can an unborn child feel pain?" but is eager to inflict pain on those humans who are already born.

I think human beings do deserve our love, our compassion, and our protection, especially via just laws. I just don't exclude "terrorists" from the category "human beings."

Torture, lies, and videotape

2010-04-16T18:28:00.000-07:00

Did CIA officials lie about having permission to destroy torture tapes? Maybe:

Jose Rodriguez, then the CIA's top clandestine service official, ordered the destruction of the videotapes, which showed the waterboarding and interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, alleged al Qaeda mastermind of the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Rodriguez believed that if the tapes were ever viewed out of context, "they would make us look terrible, it would be 'devastating' to us," according to one of the emails released.
The email, which describes a meeting on Nov. 10, 2005, the day after Rodriguez ordered the tapes destroyed, seems to show then director Goss agreeing with Rodriguez's decision.
Sent to the CIA's number three official shortly after the meeting, the email suggested that Goss had approved of the destruction and "laughed" and acknowledged that he "would take the heat" for the decision. "All in the room agreed," said the email, that release of the tapes would be a major problem.
But a former intelligence official familiar with the meeting said Goss had not approved of the destruction.

Porter understood why Jose destroyed the tapes, but was against their destruction," the official told ABCNEWS.com. At the meeting, said the official, Goss told Rodriguez and other CIA officers that "destroying tapes of any kind is just a bad idea in Washington."

Read the whole thing here.

Now, why would the tapes "...make us look terrible...", I wonder? Surely all that was going on was a little perfectly legal enhanced interrogation, right? What could possible be wrong with that?

Should we call this...

2010-04-09T15:30:00.000-07:00

..."enhanced execution?"

Hat tip: Mark Shea.

To protest or not to protest...

2010-04-07T18:06:00.000-07:00

Congress.org (run by CQ-Roll Call) has an update on the groups that have been protesting the U.S. internment camp at Guantanamo Bay.

The main point of the article is that, since President Obama's inauguration, the protests have diminished to nearly nothing. Why?

When asked whether he felt it was important to step up the pressure against the Obama administration, Lane responded, "What business do I have thinking we ever put any pressure on them?"

So apathy is in the air. Another activist said, "Our big fear was that Americans would get used to Guantanamo, and that’s the direction in which we're headed."

But peppered through the article are hints that the liberal-conservative template of politics (and everything else) just isn't fitting as neatly as it did when Bush was president. Activists are described as "liberal" and they are "trying to hatch a plan of action for the new political climate." That is to say, for the political climate where a "liberal" and perceived ally holds the top office.

Seems to me that the difficulty of thinking clearly about the torture issue (as well as just war and other related issues, as Red points out,) is not confined to Catholic circles. Torture is seen as a "liberal" issue, and now that the "liberals" have "won" it's hard to keep up the enthusiasm for protesting.

Except that it's not a liberal issue. It's a moral issue. It's a human issue. And those who describe themselves as conservatives, whether politically or socially or economically, have many reasons in common with those who claim the liberal label.

I wonder if opposition to torture would have been labeled "liberal" had it been a Democrat in office when the techniques were authorized?

Intriguingly, the only specific group mentioned by name is Witness Against Torture, which was founded by "a few dozen Christians." The article doesn't go any further, and WAT's website refrains from any explicitly religious language, but I would love to know the link between the protesters' faith and their reasons for protesting.

Catholics and disarmament

2010-04-07T16:52:00.000-07:00

I apologize for neglecting this blog somewhat over the last week. On the one hand, no news about torture is good news; on the other, there are issues worth discussing that relate to just war, military policies, and so on that would be a good fit to address here.

One problem I have in addressing these matters is that I was a late "convert" to the fullness of the Church's teaching in regards to just war theory, the incalculable evil of our use of nuclear weapons in World War II, and similar matters. I tended to dismiss serious concerns about these things as mere Catholic liberalism, which to me was identified with liturgical laxity, indifference to Church teaching about sexual morality, and the like.

It took reading some books and watching some movies about the devastation our use of nuclear weapons caused at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and going from there to explore the ideas the Church had developed about the parameters of a just war, before I realized that my positions on these issues were not at all in harmony with the Catholic faith. But because I came to this realization rather late, I have not done the amount of study necessary to be able to discuss these issues with good clarity.

Take, for instance, the recent news reports about President Obama's intention to enter a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. On the one hand, since the scenarios where it would ever be permissible, morally, to deploy a nuclear weapon are few if they even exist at all, it seems like having fewer of these frighteningly destructive weapons around would be a good thing.

But on the other hand, I'm quite sympathetic to the logic and reason of an opinion piece like this one:

A second lesson is that the NPT invites multiple opportunities to cheat by insisting that all states, including those suspected of violations, have a "right" to civilian nuclear technology.

As Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center reminds us, "so long as there is some conceivable civilian application [for a nuclear technology], and the offending activity or material is admitted to or declared to international inspectors, the international community ultimately presumes what it senses to be suspect must be treated as if it was peaceful and legitimate and, therefore, unactionable." This is one lesson of the Atoms for Peace folly of the 1950s.

To the extent that more states haven't gone nuclear, the reason has been U.S. power, not a treaty. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Canada could build a bomb in a week, but instead they have long relied on America's nuclear umbrella to deter aggressors. A credible U.S. nuclear deterrent is the world's greatest antiproliferation weapon.

As for New Start, its most striking trait is its Cold War mentality. The pact emphasizes the relative size of the U.S and Russian arsenals, as if a nuclear exchange between these two countries is the world's greatest current threat. The treaty is thus of little strategic consequence, though the Senate should ask why its ceiling on 800 U.S. launchers (many of which now carry conventional payloads) is below the 860 that the Pentagon prefers.

Is there any proper defensive reason to maintain a large nuclear arsenal? Is the creation of pacts and treaties just window-dressing, ignoring that the threat of a rogue nation's nuclear attack might be greater than any threat of a nuclear strike between larger countries? If Catholics think that we would likely be acting immorally to deploy nuclear weapons even defensively, is there any justification in retaining a large and aging arsenal of these weapons? Does the fact that the technology exists and is widespread and unlikely to disappear change the moral considerations at all, as concerns disarmament?

I have heard some Catholics say that disarmament, including unilateral disarmament, is the only morally correct approach to nuclear weapons. I would really like to hear from those better equipped to discuss the moral theology than I am as to whether that is true or not.

Painting, broad brush, etc.

2010-03-29T15:44:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting look at the drafter of the Bush torture memos, John Yoo:

Reporting from Berkeley - In his slate-blue suit and Republican-red tie, John Yoo stands out as discordantly formal among the denim- and turtleneck-clad faculty at Boalt Hall School of Law. Never mind how his politics play in what he derides as "the People's Republic of Berkeley."

The former Bush administration lawyer who drafted what his critics call the "torture memos" is reviled by many in this liberal East Bay academic enclave, a feeling that is mutual though not, Yoo insists, wholly unpleasant.

"I think of myself as being West Berlin during the Cold War, a shining beacon of capitalism and democracy surrounded by a sea of Marxism," Yoo observes, sipping iced tea in the faculty club lounge, a wan smile registering the discomfort of colleagues walking by en route to the bar.

He sees his neighbors as the human figures of "a natural history museum of the 1960s," the Telegraph Avenue tableau of a graying, long-haired, pot-smoking counterculture stuck in the ideology's half-century-old heyday.

"It's like looking at the panoramic displays of troglodytes sitting around the campfire with their clubs. Here, it's tie-dye and marijuana. It's just like the 1960s, with the Vietnam War still to protest."

Yoo, 42, is unrepentant about his role in providing the CIA and other agencies with legal cover to conduct harsh interrogation of terror suspects with techniques such as water-boarding, which simulates drowning. In legal guidance he provided to the past administration, Yoo redefined torture as pain resulting in organ failure or death.

It can be dangerous to be caught up in an ideological echo chamber. None of us grows as human beings if our only encounters are with people who agree with us in every respect. In suggesting what's wrong with Berkeley, Yoo has a point.

Unfortunately, the flip side of this is also true--it may be easier for someone like Yoo to dismiss torture critics as being essentially of the same mindset as the "troglodytes" of liberalism he sees every day. We've seen that before here, on this blog, when commenters have assumed that anyone who opposes torture must not only be politically liberal, but accept a liberal agenda on moral issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. as part of the "package deal" one buys if one is a torture opponent.

Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. It is possible to oppose torture simply on the grounds that it is morally evil, and to oppose abortion and gay marriage as well on the same grounds.

When we paint our political opponents with such a broad brush, we may miss the fact that even among our allies criticisms of our ideas may flourish, and that these criticisms can't be dismissed as "Marxism," with an urbane smile and a sip of civilized tea.

And should someone who is often on our side, politically, point out that Yoo's definition of torture is what the law tends to define as either "attempted murder" or "murder," and is far too narrow to encompass things that really do rise to the level of torture (do you notice, for instance, that Yoo's definition would permit broken bones, fingernails being pulled out, being burned with hot irons, being scourged with a cat o' nine tails, and similar horrors?), does it really help if one is predisposed to see all such criticism as "liberal" and thus fundamentally unsound?

But where will torture-defenders get their TTB scenarios now?

2010-03-26T20:57:00.000-07:00

"24" is canceled. This, of course, threatens our safety as Americans and opens our broadcast viewing hours to the threat of terrorism. Because if Jack Bauer's not in charge, then the terrorists win.

Unintended consequences

2010-03-26T20:50:00.000-07:00

File this one under the unintended consequences of torture:

Critics are already chiding the federal court judge for granting Slahi's petition for habeas corpus and using it to argue the merits of military commissions rather than civilian trials for suspected terrorists.

But the government had already tried and failed to prosecute Slahi in a military commission for what's likely the same reason Judge Robinson ordered him freed: Slahi was tortured in US custody.

US District Judge James Robinson's order was filed under seal and an unclassified version is not yet available. But Slahi's lawyers argued to the court that his torture tainted his confession. The judge appears to have determined that any other evidence against him was equally unreliable or insufficient.

Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, the military commission prosecutor assigned to Slahi's case, came to exactly that conclusion six years ago. Reviewing the classified evidence in the case, Couch concluded that Slahi, who turned himself in for questioning in Mauritania before being transferred to Jordan, Afghanistan and finally Guantanamo Bay, had been mentally and physically tortured in order to induce a confession. In addition to threatening Slahi's life, Couch said in an interview last year, US interrogators threatened to bring his mother to the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, where, they implied, she would be gang-raped. To Couch, "that was just over the top. For lack of a better term, that's just un-American." [...]

And Mohamedou Ould Slahi isn't the only prisoner we've been unable to prosecute due to torture. From the same source:

That problem has now come to a head. More than 180 detainees remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay without charge, many after having been incarcerated for more than seven years. In 34 of 45 cases, independent federal judges, some of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush, have determined that the government lacks sufficient evidence to justify continuing to imprison the men. At least one other military commission case – the case of Mohammed al-Qatani - had to be dropped altogether because the suspect had been tortured. In another case, the suspect's statements were all suppressed for the same reason. His petition for release was granted.

Note that some of the judges making the determination about insufficient evidence were George W. Bush appointees; this isn't a "liberal vs. conservative judge" debate. The bottom line is that our use of torture on detainees weakens our ability to prosecute them for crimes of terrorism.

Which is something we ought to keep in mind, when insisting that torture keeps us safe.

Fact-checking Thiessen's book

2010-03-22T18:16:00.001-07:00

As Robert mentions in his post below, Jane Mayer of the New Yorker has an interesting article up which fact-checks Marc Thiessen's book, Courting Disaster. Mayer finds a lot of holes in Thiessen's theories:

Yet Thiessen is better at conveying fear than at relaying the facts. His account of the foiled Heathrow plot, for example, is “completely and utterly wrong,” according to Peter Clarke, who was the head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism branch in 2006. “The deduction that what was being planned was an attack against airliners was entirely based upon intelligence gathered in the U.K.,” Clarke said, adding that Thiessen’s “version of events is simply not recognized by those who were intimately involved in the airlines investigation in 2006.” Nor did Scotland Yard need to be told about the perils of terrorists using liquid explosives. The bombers who attacked London’s public-transportation system in 2005, Clarke pointed out, “used exactly the same materials.”
Thiessen’s claim about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed looks equally shaky. The Bush interrogation program hardly discovered the Philippine airlines plot: in 1995, police in Manila stopped it from proceeding and, later, confiscated a computer filled with incriminating details. By 2003, when Mohammed was detained, hundreds of news reports about the plot had been published. If Mohammed provided the C.I.A. with critical new clues—details unknown to the Philippine police, or anyone else—Thiessen doesn’t supply the evidence.
Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert who is writing a history of the Bush Administration’s “war on terror,” told me that the Heathrow plot “was disrupted by a combination of British intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, and Scotland Yard.” He noted that authorities in London had “literally wired the suspects’ bomb factory for sound and video.” It was “a classic law-enforcement and intelligence success,” Bergen said, and “had nothing to do with waterboarding or with Guantánamo detainees.” [...]

Tellingly, Thiessen does not address the many false confessions given by detainees under torturous pressure, some of which have led the U.S. tragically astray. Nowhere in this book, for instance, does the name Ibn Sheikh al-Libi appear. In 2002, the C.I.A., under an expanded policy of extraordinary rendition, turned Libi over to Egypt to be brutalized. Under duress, Libi falsely linked Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s alleged biochemical-weapons program, in Iraq. In February, 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell gave an influential speech in which he made the case for going to war against Iraq and prominently cited this evidence.

It is not only possible to thwart terrorism without resorting to torture, it is preferable to do so. False intelligence gained under torture may have led the United States astray in its terror-fighting efforts, and there's no guarantee that a focus on so-called "enhanced interrogation" might mean missing out on intelligence gained via traditional methods. At the very least, the idea that we owe specific victories over terrorism to torture is one that needs the kind of serious investigation Mayer is providing.

Something besides health care to talk about

2010-03-22T15:35:00.000-07:00

The Pew Forum's survey from last year shows why some people suspect standing against torture to be an anti-Catholic or anti-religious attitude: statistically, it is.

But thank God we're not bound by statistics. Instead, we're bound to seek the truth and to pursue the good.

Jane Mayer of The New Yorker takes apart Marc Thiessen's arguments. Scott Horton of Harper's concurs.

Meanwhile, blogger Fabius Maximus gives a long list of readings about torture, and explains why it depresses him so.

And, across the pond, the U.K. continues to investigate their soldiers' "complicity in torture" that was carried out by U.S. soldiers. The Times of India alleges that the U.K. actually has been torturing prisoners directly. I haven't seen any corroboration of this allegation, though.

Some news from across the pond

2010-03-19T11:41:00.000-07:00

No commentary for now, just links:

From the Guardian: Gordon Brown breaks promise over torture guidelines

From the Daily Mail: Ministers will have the final say on whether spies can torture

Numbers, significance, action

2010-03-18T16:37:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading John Allen's recent article on Pope Benedict's former and current activity with regard to the clerical abuse of children.

The article is well worth reading in its own right. But I was struck by a couple of the comments, which put forth the arguement that at most clergy abuse children at about the same rate as the rest of society. In other words, the clerical abuse problem is small in the context of the larger sexual abuse problem in Western (at least) society.

Which made me think of the comments on this blog that the torture problem is tiny compared to the problem of abortion in our country.

Yet, even given that sexual abuse by clergy is numerically smaller than sexual abuse by relatives or schoolteachers or other sections of society - this is no reason to pretend that sexual abuse by clergy is in any way tolerable or easily ignored. Rather, we pray that progress in bringing justice to pedophile priests and healing to victims of their abuse will lead to progress in bringing all abusers to justice and all victims to healing.

Likewise, my own personal hope (and, I think, the hope of the members of our little Coalition) is that by working for the recognition of the inherent dignity even of enemies and terrorists we can bring to light the dignity of the unborn, the elderly, the infirm and handicapped, and so on. In other words, my hope is that by not denying the problems that are small, we can stand more firm in the face of problems that are large.

No one denies that there are more abortions in this country than there are incidents of torture. Yet this does not make torture tolerable or easily ignored. Indeed, by ignoring torture, we tear apart the thread of logic that allows us to speak of the dignity of the unborn, or the dignity of the elderly, or the dignity of any vulnerable person anywhere. Our goal is to uphold that dignity and to say with our Lord, "Behold, it is very good!"

Torture: the game show

2010-03-17T16:55:00.000-07:00

This is absolutely appalling:

PARIS — Game show contestants turn torturers in a new psychological experiment for French television, zapping a man with electricity until he cries for mercy -- then zapping him again until he seems to drop dead.
"The Game of Death" has all the trappings of a traditional television quiz show, with a roaring crowd and a glamorous and well-known hostess urging the players on under gaudy studio lights.
But the contestants did not know they were taking part in an experiment to find out whether television could push them to outrageous lengths, and which has prompted comparisons with the atrocities of Nazi Germany.
"We were amazed to find that 81 percent of the participants obeyed" the sadistic orders of the television presenter, said Christophe Nick, the maker of the documentary for the state-owned France 2 channel which airs Wednesday.
"They are not equipped to disobey," he added. "They don't want to do it, they try to convince the authority figure that they should stop, but they don't manage to," he told AFP.
Nick and a team of psychologists recruited 80 volunteers, telling them they were taking part in a pilot for a new television show.
The game: posing questions to another "player" and punishing him with up to 460 volts of electricity when he gets them wrong -- even until his cries of "Let me go!" fall silent and he appears to have died.
Not knowing that the screaming victim is really an actor, the apparently reluctant contestants yield to the orders of the presenter and chants of "Punishment!" from a studio audience who also believed the game was real.
Nick said 80 percent of the contestants went all the way, zapping the victim with the maximum 460 volts until he appeared to die. Out of 80 players, just 16 walked out.

Not only the contestants, but the studio audience, believed that the actor screaming was a real victim being tortured to death. Yet, manipulated by the lights, the cameras, the presenter of the show, and the pressure to conform to what others were doing, they overwhelmingly chose to continue the torture--the audience shouting along.

Read the whole article; especially interesting are the comments from a female contestant who went along with the "torture" despite knowing her own grandparents had been persecuted by the Nazis.

I think this experiment shows how easily people can be manipulated to approve of torture, not only by "24"-style dramas, but by urbane commentary from respected political figures laughing to scorn the idea that "a little water on the face" means that someone is suffering the pains of drowning and could even die. This experiment shows that even if the death of the victim seems immanent, enough people will rationalize that it ought to happen purely for entertainment to make our emotions dangerous guides in these murky realms.

Father Brian Harrison's clarification

2010-03-16T17:42:00.000-07:00

On Mark Shea's blog, a rather extraordinary missive has been posted--a clarification from Father Brian Harrison as to his opinions on the torture issue. Excerpt:

The central point of my present statement is as follows. A friend has pointed out to me today that in a speech of 6 September 2007 on Catholic prisons ministry, Pope Benedict XVI personally endorsed a statement against torture found in the 2005 Vatican Compendium of the Church's Social Teaching. Citing article 404 of this document, the Holy Father said, "In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture 'cannot be contravened under any circumstances'".

In my 2005 Living Tradition article on the development of Church teaching regarding torture and corporal punishment (cf. www.rtforum/lt/lt118.html) I had cited and discussed, in my section A13 and footnote 27, this article 404 of the Compendium, which is a publication of the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace. I pointed out then that this and other statements authored by the Commission itself - as distinct from the statements of Popes and Councils which it cites abundantly throughout the Compendium - does not possess magisterial authority; for the various Vatican commissions, unlike the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are not in themselves arms of the Church's magisterium (teaching authority).

However, having now become aware that Pope Benedict himself has personally reiterated this particular statement of the Compendium, I wish to state that I accept the Holy Father's judgement on this matter, and so would not defend any proposal, under any circumstances, to use torture for any purpose whatsoever - not even to gain potentially life-saving information from known terrorists.

You'll have to go and read the whole thing; Father Harrison believes that the question as to whether waterboarding is torture is still an open one, and says that it is unjust to accuse Marc Thiessen of consequentialism (while pointing out that Thiessen makes some particular errors in his arguments).

There is much to say about Father Harrison's statement, but as he's addressed his letter to Mark Shea, and Mark is presently unable because of other obligations to make a thorough reply, I will refrain from commenting at the present time.

Stuff from around the web

2010-03-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

Just a bunch of links of interest:

On President Obama, and his continuation of Bush policies in everything but name, we have Andy Worthington noting that the president continues to stand by his commitment to protect those who enacted and authorized torture in previous years. And this from the administration that claims transparency is its hallmark! Such policies continue to make friends abroad ... um, or not.

On the up side, Federal Judge Wayne Andersen is allowing a lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, agreeing that he is not above the law.

And here's another former CIA agent (retired in 2004) who acknowledges that waterboarding (along with other "enhanced interrogation" techniques) is both torture and wrong.

Also, film reviewer and columnist Steve Greydanus agrees that torture is a sin, and should be condemned even when our own country does it. Welcome to the Coalition, Steve!

Something of a tangent from the focus of this site: John C. Wright notes that a major vote on health care reform will take place today. While the U.S. Bishops have strongly supported a reform of our health care system, they note that the current legislation makes abortion a federally funded activity. Write, call, text your elected officials! Let them know that abortion is not health care. Let them know that a "right to choose" doesn't imply a "right to have other people pay for my abortion".

"Proud" of waterboarding?

2010-03-12T20:26:00.000-08:00

Karl Rove thinks America should be proud of waterboarding:

The man known for much of his career as “Bush’s brain” has caused a storm of protest by saying that he is proud of waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on prisoners by the US and internationally condemned as torture. Karl Rove said that the Administration “broke the will of these terrorists and gave us valuable information”.

In a new memoir of his years as President Bush’s chief political strategist, Mr Rove says that he was not told at the time of the President’s decision to authorise waterboarding — which feels to its victims like drowning — but he defends the move, claims that senior Democrats “were complicit in its use” and denies that it amounts to torture. [...]
Pressed on his personal view of waterboarding, Mr Rove told the BBC: “I’m proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They’re appropriate, they’re in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.”

What do we even say to this?

If we could make the world a safer place by dropping nuclear bombs on random targets in the Mideast, would that make it right--something to be proud of?

If we could make the world a safer place by carrying on a program of genocide against the Islamic peoples of the world, would that make it right--something to be proud of?

Saying we should be proud that the world is "safer" because of waterboarding isn't much different than saying we should be proud that health care is "cheaper" because of all those babies who were aborted before their health care could cost us any real money. We condemn the one without hesitation. So ought we condemn the other.

Marc Thiessen Daily Show interview

2010-03-10T18:07:00.001-08:00

The following links will take you to the extended interview with Marc Thiessen by Jon Stewart of The Daily Show:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

There's a lot of material here, and a lot of questions, ranging from how we ought to detain enemy combatants and habeas corpus matters, to the idea that safety depends on our use of "enhanced interrogation," to whether or not our methods involved torture, and so forth. The clips are lengthy, but thought-provoking to listen to. Thiessen does repeat his claim that terrorists thanked interrogators for waterboarding him, but the audience, and Mr. Stewart, are not quite as passive about that claim as Raymond Arroyo was on EWTN.

One thing that strikes me--Thiessen says the purpose of interrogation is to "break" the person being interrogated. Is that already a step to far in the direction of dehumanizing the prisoner? What do you think?

Another thing--Thiessen swears waterboarding isn't torture when we do it (especially to our own troops) but that it is if others do it to Americans. How is that possible?

By the third part of the interview, Stewart's frustration is evident. He wants to know what would have happened if KSM had resisted waterboarding--Thiessen refuses to answer, and he refuses to contemplate that anything but waterboarding would have worked. It gets interesting.

The interview is well worth watching, and if you do watch, I'd love to hear your comments below. Many thanks to the reader who sent it to me!

Yes, waterboarding IS torture

2010-03-09T11:12:00.001-08:00

You really must read this post by Mark Shea in which the CIA's waterboarding technique is discussed. Then you must go and read the whole article that Mark is quoting from:

Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney "specially designed" to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner's nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding "session." Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second "applications" of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee's nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.

Marc Thiessen has been saying everywhere that "our" kind of waterboarding isn't torture at all, that "our" kind of waterboarding is merely "enhanced interrogation," that "our" kind of waterboarding fits perfectly well with Catholic teaching and that Catholics can approve of it in good conscience. After all, we waterboarded our own troops in training, right?

Let's see about that:

Though public, the hundreds of pages of documents authorizing or later reviewing the agency's "enhanced interrogation program" haven't been mined for waterboarding details until now. While Bush-Cheney officials defended the legality and safety of waterboarding by noting the practice has been used to train U.S. service members to resist torture, the documents show that the agency's methods went far beyond anything ever done to a soldier during training. U.S. soldiers, for example, were generally waterboarded with a cloth over their face one time, never more than twice, for about 20 seconds, the CIA admits in its own documents.

These memos show the CIA went much further than that with terror suspects, using huge and dangerous quantities of liquid over long periods of time. The CIA's waterboarding was "different" from training for elite soldiers, according to the Justice Department document released last month. "The difference was in the manner in which the detainee's breathing was obstructed," the document notes. In soldier training, "The interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth (on a soldier's face) in a controlled manner," DOJ wrote. "By contrast, the agency interrogator ... continuously applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose."

Please go and read the whole article. If you still think waterboarding isn't torture, I think the burden of proof that it somehow isn't, is on you.

Tom asks a good question

2010-03-07T12:24:00.000-08:00

In a comment, Tom (of Disputations fame) asks:

Let me ask a question, one that is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one, and also a question I think the Coalition for Clarity should have an answer to:

How do we discuss torture with someone who thinks opposing torture makes you a left-wing kook?

I'm not asking how we debate such a person. To win a debate, all we need to do is make sure he states his opinion clearly.

I'm asking how we engage him in a way that we may together arrive at the truth, to use an expression I like.

In other words, Tom is asking how we can achieve the clarity of communication, the genuine connection, that this blog has set as its goal.

He points out a specific obstacle a little further down in the conversation:

So maybe a sub-question is, how do we get someone who thinks opposing torture makes you a left-wing kook to understand that people can and do oppose both torture and abortion? As Scott's comment most recently demonstrates, it's not enough to point out to such a person that he is wrong on the facts.

I think this question deserves a post of its own. And perhaps it can develop into a practical discussion of strategies to promote real awareness, and hopefully real change, in the social and political environment that is so hostile to Catholic moral teaching and to the dignity of the human person.

Just to start off with, maybe, I'd invite commentators such as @jasper, @love the girls, @greta, to describe what exactly the foundations are for their approach to Catholic moral teaching.

And, since I don't believe in asking of another what I'm unwilling to do myself, here is my answer:

As far as I see it, the foundation of all Catholic teaching is Jesus Christ himself. In terms of morality, we are to follow him, meaning to imitate his way of life. He has described his way of life to us in his "new" commandment, to love one another as he has loved us.

From this is derived our goals as individuals to convey the love of Christ to all who we meet, whether by doing good for them directly or by calling them to repentance so that they become able to receive the love of God.

Moreover, even the powers and goals of the State are founded in the command of love. The State cannot make one person love one another, but it can remove obstacles to love (and, since they are related to love, all the other virtues), as well as establish obstacles to vice and sin, and punish those who harm society. The State has the power and the authority to defend the community against aggression in order to preserve the community's ability to follow Christ.

In short, as far as I see it, all Catholic moral teaching is rooted in our Lord's command to love as he has loved us.

Okay, your turn.

A military investigator takes on Thiessen

2010-03-05T17:52:00.001-08:00

A fascinating essay in which a military investigator points out Marc Thiessen's errors is here; excerpt:

Thiessen also argues that we will never know what other information we would have gotten out of KSM had we not used torture and abuse. But we do know. We need only examine the success of numerous professional interrogators against high-ranking members of al-Qaida. There is Eric Maddox, the U.S. Army interrogator who located Saddam Hussein (as told in his excellent book Mission: Black List #1).There is also Ali Soufan, the FBI agent who successfully interrogated Abu Zubaydah. In Iraq, my own team successfully interrogated many mid- and high-level leaders of al-Qaida while hunting Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Serious interrogators have little doubt that we would have gotten better information from KSM, and sooner, had the interrogations been conducted by professional interrogators using noncoercive techniques.
Another mischaracterization in Courting Disaster is Thiessen's claim that CIA water-boarding is identical to the water-boarding given American troops in training. Thiessen calls it "absurd" to believe we would torture our own troops. But if it were the same as the training given American troops, detainees would be told beforehand that it's temporary and voluntary; they'd have a codeword to make it stop at any time; and be reassured that it would not harm them permanently. Real water-boarding—unlike resistance training—exploits the real fear of death. The detainee does not know when, or if, it will stop. This is no different than charging the slide of a pistol and pointing it at a prisoner's head. The soldier holding the pistol may have taken precautions (removing the bullets from the magazine and/or getting the Justice Department to produce memos calling it legal), but it's still illegal, as the military courts determined when an American soldier did just this in Afghanistan. Threatening prisoners with death or physical harm is torture. That's precisely why the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Conventions Against Torture, U.S. law, and military regulations prohibit it.
The many omissions from Thiessen's book are also telling. For instance, in citing case law regarding water-boarding as torture, he fails to mention the case of a Texas sheriff and his deputies who were convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for water-boarding prisoners. (The John Yoo torture memos conveniently disregarded this precedent as well.) Thiessen states that water-boarding depicted at Tuol Sleng Prison in Cambodia is different because it involved dunking a prisoner's head in a tub of water. But there is a painting at Tuol Sleng of a victim being tortured in the same position CIA interrogators used. For a man so obsessed with tiny details that define away and excuse torture, Thiessen should have caught a large detail that spotlights it.

As I read this essay, I kept thinking that Marc Thiessen's biggest gamble all along has been to count on the silence of those in the military who are in a position to object to "enhanced interrogation." This piece does a good job of showing the weakness of Thiessen's arguments, especially as viewed by people who are in a position to know better.

Jen on Hannah Arendt on torture - UPDATED

2010-03-04T11:44:00.000-08:00

Just Jen has a couple of posts, forming a kind of dialogue with Big Think writer Robert de Neufville, on Hannah Arendt's articulation of torture as a kind of bully weakness.

"I can't get what I want, so I'll hurt you instead!"

But this is a thin mask for not being able to get what one wants.

So, in the U.S. today, we haven't captured Osama bin Laden, and we don't have a 100% certainty of safety from future terrorist attacks, so torture is one of the ways we satisfy our need to appear strong in the face of our weakness.

But, as St. Paul reminds us, when we are weak it is then that we are strong in God.

UPDATE: It occured to me while re-reading this post that it may be taken as an accusation of ill-will or weakness on the part of torture supporters. Since my own motives are mixed, this probably was some part of my intent, so I apologize and repent. The will and moral status of another is not mine to judge.

I let it stand, though, with this clarification: we all of us are weak by our fallen human nature, and fear drives us all. I admit in myself a vengefulness, too, that I have to resist. When I discover a weakness in myself, I do my best to hide it and to cover it over with strength; but this effort is always doomed to failure. I cannot deny the fact of my weakness, my vulnerability.

Instead, the answer is to offer my weakness to the One who is Strength. I do this far too rarely.

As they say, the preacher preaches first to himself.

Can torture victims sue their torturers?

2010-03-03T13:14:00.001-08:00

Here's an interesting case, that might eventually have some repercussions for the whole torture debate:

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices on Wednesday questioned whether a former prime minister of Somalia can be sued in U.S. courts over claims that he oversaw killings and torture in his home country.
At issue is whether foreign officials, not just countries and their agencies, receive immunity in federal court from being sued for their actions while in power.
Mohamed Ali Samantar was defense minister and prime minister of Somalia in the 1980s and early 1990s under dictator Siad Barre. He now lives in Virginia and is being sued by victims who say he was responsible for killings, rapes and torture, including waterboarding.
The court's decision could have broad foreign policy implications. Allowing lawsuits against former foreign officials living in the United States could increase the likelihood that U.S. officials would be sued in overseas courts. An increase in the number of U.S. lawsuits dealing with past actions in foreign countries could also affect the United States' current ties with those countries.
But a decision granting immunity could prevent torture victims from getting their day in U.S. courts when their oppressors have emigrated to the United States, advocates said.

At issue is not whether Samantar is responsible for torture; at issue is whether he was acting in an official government capacity as the agent of a foreign government, and is thus entitled to the same immunity his country has against being sued in a United States court.

Clearly, a decision allowing Samantar to be sued by his victims would be viewed with trepidation by those who have authorized torture by United States agencies. It's pretty unlikely that a "Marc Thiessen defense" which claimed that waterboarding isn't torture and that the victims of it thank their tormentors would fly in any foreign courts.

A depressing quote

2010-03-02T16:29:00.000-08:00

In a Wall Street Journal piece about John Yoo's missing emails on the subjects like waterboarding, we find this rather depressing quote:

The panel's ranking Republican, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, said continuing controversy over interrogation and detention practices was being stoked by those opposed to military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Every time you're in a conflict, the antiwar groups always find something to complain about," he said.

Talk about painting with a broad brush.

Quite a lot of us who oppose torture are not in any sense of the word "antiwar." For instance, I'm against unjust wars, in favor of just ones, and inclined to listen to many different people as I determine which are which. I'm not automatically in favor of any war my country decides to get involved in; history alone ought to show us that's not a safe "default" position for a sincere Christian to take, as not all American involvement in war has been just.

What's really depressing, to me, is Sen. Sessions' idea that torture is just "something to complain about," something that's not really worth discussing unless you really are one of those antiwar zealots carrying protests signs and tattooing the peace symbol on your forehead, or something. America went almost overnight from being a nation too honorable ever to consider torture, to being a nation where having the gumption to support "enhanced interrogation" was somehow a test of one's red-blooded patriotic American bona fides; the question "Ought we do any such thing?" was brushed aside in favor of a rhetorical plastic bracelet which reads WWJBD--or "What would Jack Bauer Do?"

I've never been antiwar, I've never voted for a Democrat, I've voted for Republicans for president except when they ran Bob Dole (and I voted for an independent that year)--but somehow my objection to making our troops inflict the pains of drowning on prisoners to get them to talk makes me, in Senator Sessions' way of thinking, a hippie peacenik who just wants to stoke controversy to mask opposition to war. Because it couldn't be that there's actually anything wrong with torture, now, could it?

Zippy on torture: it's about the action, not the effect

2010-03-01T07:35:00.000-08:00

Zippy has an excellent post on his blog that walks through the reasons that torture is still torture, even if the prisoner doesn't "break."

This is, of course, a great example of why consequentialism is bogus reasoning: if what really matters is the effect or the outcome, then there's no such thing as "attempted murder" or other such crimes. There's no reason for security at airports, because there's no consequence to carrying a weapon onto an airplane - until someone uses it!

Ironically, the reasoning used to justify torture is exactly the reasoning that would undermine all the legitimate security and defense measures this country (and most others) have put into place.

Catholic vs. Catholic on torture

2010-02-26T17:33:00.000-08:00

Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times has an interesting piece today looking at Marc Thiessen's views on torture--and the views of his Catholic opponents:

While Mr. Thiessen points out that the church does not forbid specific acts, his antagonists say the church’s guidelines are hardly nebulous. The blogger Andrew Sullivan has noted that the Catechism condemns “torture which uses physical or moral violence.”
The philosopher Christopher O. Tollefsen, in an essay attacking Mr. Thiessen’s views in the online magazine Public Discourse, points to the 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor. There, Pope John Paul II wrote that there are acts that “are always seriously wrong by reason of their object,” including “whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity.”
The belief that waterboarding is morally or physically violent seems to unite all the writers who have criticized Mr. Thiessen, a group that includes the conservative blogger Conor Friedersdorf; Mark Shea, who edits the Web portal Catholic Exchange; and Joe Carter, who blogs for First Things, a magazine popular with conservative Catholics. [All links in original--E.M.]

It's interesting to see that the debate over Marc Thiessen's views is spreading beyond the Catholic blogosphere. The deficiencies in Thiessen's arguments, and most particularly his misreading of the principle of double effect and the Just War theory, need to be made visible. While in some senses this may simply seem like yet another internal Catholic debate, this goes beyond the typical "Catholic vs. Catholic" framework; to the extent that Catholics and others are influenced by Thiessen's claims that "enhanced interrogation" is perfectly aligned with Catholic moral teaching, those claims must be addressed.

Is it better to suffer evil than to commit evil? {Part II of II}

2010-02-25T15:04:00.000-08:00

In {Part I}, I argued that the apparently permanent nature of some sufferings could be answered by the religious ideas of resurrection or reincarnation. I also said that I thought that an answer could be given without relying on religious doctrine.

To do so, however, I need to approach the question from the other side.

What does committing evil do to us?

It is important to recall that the human person is most him- or herself when loving or receiving love. Again, this is not merely romantic love - though romantic love is a true and noble expression of love. Every form of love calls on the whole of a person, body and intellect and emotion and appetite, to seek the fulfillment of the whole of another person. This is even true of proper love of oneself, because the fulfillment of oneself involves loving others.

Now, an evil act is an act that is contrary to another's fulfillment. It may be directed at an individual or a group. It could do direct damage, or it might just present an obstacle. But what makes it evil is that it opposes someone's fulfillment.

This is an active opposition. People make mistakes, which end up hurting others, but these are not moral evils because they are actually contrary to our intentions. Also, no one person can bring total and perfect fulfillment to anyone - not even to oneself. So there is no absolute obligation to do every good that is possible for every person one encounters.

However, there are some cases where a deliberate witholding of a necessary good thing, like witholding first aid from an injured person when there is no one else to help, does constitute an evil act: a sin of omission, in traditional language.

So, in order to commit an evil act, a person has to act contrary to love; that is, he or she has to act contrary to his or her own fulfillment, as well as contrary to the fulfillment of another. (This, by the way, is why the Catechism says that "Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart.") Every evil act damages or even destroys both one's relationship with another and one's ability to relate to other people. It damages one's ability to love.

Why committing evil is worse than suffering it

So, it seems that both the worst kind of suffering and the worst kind of committing evil lead to the same result: a person is incapable of loving, and therefore is incapable of living a fully human life.

But the inability to love that results from suffering evil comes from the obstacles placed in one's way. A person is denied the opportunity or the practical ability to love.

A person who commits evil strikes at the root of love itself: he or she "hardens his or her heart" and twists his or own faculties of loving. So, even when the opportunities arise and the person has the practical ability, he or she does not have the moral ability to love.

Moreover, this is not only the result of the worst acts of evil. It results from the smallest injustices and the slightest sins of omission. These extend, like cracks in a windshield, through the whole depth of one's life, weakening one's moral resolve, and - if left unchecked - will eventually lead to a complete break-down of one's moral life.

Even in this life, even if there is no resurrection, I submit that this is a worse fate than suffering evil, including suffering death.

"Then who can be saved?"

Now, I am not suggesting that any of us are morally perfect. We all have "dings" in our moral "windshields". We all have the responsibility to keep the cracks at bay as much as possible. For Catholics, at least, this includes recourse to the mercy of God through the Sacraments, prayer, and penance.

But this also means that, Catholic or not, we have to be aware of and guard against anything that might add a new kind of moral damage. It seems to me that the issue of torture - disgused, as all temptation is, by a great good: national self-defense - is exactly a way to attack our moral integrity where it is as yet undamaged.

Those who rightly stand up for the dignity and the rights of the defenseless, especially the unborn in the womb, allow their very ability to love the basic dignity and rights of every human person to be smashed by allowing torture into their moral lives.

Of course, it is far worse actually to torture someone than merely to defend the State's torture of someone. But creating such justifications in one's mind still chips away at the basis of love which is the core of human happiness and good. It is a small evil, but a dangerous one nonetheless.

If left unchecked, it will destroy everything that we love, and our very ability to love. Nothing can justify that loss.

Is it better to suffer evil or to commit evil? {Part I of II}

2010-02-25T14:03:00.000-08:00

This is the main question of Plato's Republic, and he answers unequivocally that it is better to suffer evil than to commit evil.

This moral principle is a foundation stone of Western culture, accepted universally by Jew and Greek and Christian alike. And there are similar arguments made in Indian and Chinese philosophy as well, even if they did not achieve quite the same dominance there.

Now, one of the justifications that some give for permitting or even promoting torture is essentially that it is better to commit evil than to suffer it. Their argument is a direct rejection of this foundational principle.

But, since I'm not one to take a principle just because it's old, I thought I'd explore just why it is better to endure evil than to commit it.

What makes me happy?

Does anyone not want to be happy? Isn't happiness exactly what we're after when we ask, "Is one thing better than another?" Don't we really mean, "Which will make me happier?"

Nor are we just talking about individual happiness: justice in a society is, among other things, what allows the members to pursue happiness and to be happy together.

And happiness is not simply pleasure. We grow tired of pleasures, even if we move from one to another. Happiness is not merely a state of well-being. Such states come and go. Neither is happiness an emotion. I myself have felt very sad at the same time as knowing deeply that I was happy. Indeed, sometimes the certainty of happiness comes in times of pain, of sickness, of sorrow - exactly because we can see that what we have is worth any of these other things.

So, what is it that we have?

St. Thomas defines happiness as the knowing possession of the good. Nice and abstract, that definition. What he means, in 21st century terms, is that we both have what is good for us, and we know that we have it.

And what is good for a human being is whatever makes us to be more human, to be more ourselves. As Christians, we say, it is to be who God made us to be, and to answer his call. In a word, what is good for humans is Love.

What does suffering evil do to us?

Now, if the goal of life is to love, then what are the obstacles to that? What can keep us from being happy in this full sense?

Already, I've mentioned that physical or emotional pain cannot take away happiness. They cannot prevent us from giving or receiving love. But I've said elsewhere that torture can break a person's will, can damage his or her ability to think clearly, to use reason - essentially, to be human.

This state of brokenness can sometimes permanently render someone incapable of loving in the full sense. The mind may never recover, or the ability to empathize may be damaged beyond healing.

Another kind of permanent suffering is death. A dead person cannot act in any way, so cannot love or be happy.

Obviously, the Catholic doctrine of resurrection to life with God answers that neither of these sufferings are truly permanent. For that matter, Plato's notion of the transmigration of souls and the similar idea of reincarnation prevalent in some Eastern religions give essentially the same answer.

But I think they can also be answered in a way that atheists could accept, without recourse to specifically religious belief. This post is already too long, though. So I will finish the argument in a post tomorrow.

Here's {Part II}!

Marc Thiessen--breaking codes like breaking people

2010-02-24T15:23:00.000-08:00

Marc Thiessen interview with the Heritage foundation's The Foundry:

Be sure not to miss the part where he equates President Obama's decision to stop using "enhanced interrogation" methods with a fictional scenario in which Neville Chamberlain boots Churchill out of office and stops the attempt to crack Nazi codes. Right--because breaking codes is exactly the moral equivalent of breaking people.

From the "No, really?" files

2010-02-24T15:09:00.001-08:00

Guess what? More people approve of "enhanced interrogation" than torture:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- U.S. adults are somewhat more accepting of "enhanced interrogation techniques" than they are of "torture," a poll released Tuesday indicates.
More than half, 55 percent, of those surveyed by Angus Reid Public Opinion said terrorism suspects should not be tortured. But 57 percent said "enhanced interrogation techniques" are acceptable.

For the poll, 1,010 adults were surveyed online Friday through Sunday. Half were asked about "torture" and half about "enhanced interrogation techniques."

While 30 percent of the first group said torture is never justified and 25 percent said it should be rare, 21 percent said it is justified most of the time and 13 percent, always justified. In the second group, 26 percent said enhanced interrogation is justified always; 31 percent, most of the time; 19 percent, rarely, and 15 percent, never.

And if we renamed things like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and the like "involuntary suspension of physical autonomy to aid investigations" I bet more people would approve of that than they would of torture, too! Amazing, right?

In not-quite-good news, though, the same poll finds that a whopping 49% of those asked disapprove of waterboarding. Wonder what would have happened if the pollsters had asked, instead, whether people approve of "enhanced involuntary anaerobic face-washing?"

Reductio ad Republicanum

2010-02-23T14:51:00.000-08:00

There's a kind of argument made for the use of torture which is specifically partisan, and in regard to which it may be straining the word to call it an "argument" at all. In essence, the argument goes something like this:

1. Sure, torture is evil. Torture is also defined as a) something which causes permanent physical damage--but not *everything* which causes permanent physical damage, and b) something which by definition only our enemies do.

2. Here in the real world, real people (real men, especially) know that sometimes to make omelets you have to break eggs. War is messy. People die, sometimes a lot of them. So anything short of killing a person in war is actually highly benevolent and kindly, if we just look at it properly.

3. During times of war, national security takes precedence over starry-eyed moralizing about the good and evil of roughing somebody up, waterboarding him, or forcibly keeping him awake for 96 hours or so. Real people (real men, especially) get this. Those who have our country's best interests at stake get this. Patriotic Americans get this.

4. There are two political parties. One of them is composed of enemies of the state, who in any perfect society would be waterboarded (or worse) themselves for their traitorous opinions, non-existent morals, and love of abortion. Ours is not a perfect society, alas, and this party is presently in charge of things, double alas. This party lacks the intestinal fortitude to do what must be done, and is, instead, so lost to all sense of patriotic duty as to arrest terrorists and charge them with crimes instead of merely detaining them and beating the unnecessary expletive out of them in the enhanced interrogation version of data mining.

5. But the other political party is composed of true patriots and heroes who also get how important it is to national security to be able to waterboard and otherwise robustly interrogate foreign terror suspects (and perhaps other enemies of the state, if that whole inconvenient Bill of Rights thing didn't get in the way). These patriots and heroes are pro-life (unless the baby is the product of rape or incest or a potential threat to the life of the mother, or is an embryo who is more valuable in a capitalistic sense if we kill her and harvest her stem cells, etc.), pro-family (except for the politicians who live on the coasts and have to vote for gay stuff or face the loss of their legislative careers), and pro-God (or so they assure us every election year). They are also the only ones we could possibly trust when it comes to dealing with terrorists, and if they say they need tort--oops, enhanced interrogation--to fight the Global War on Terror then by golly it's the duty of every patriotic American to see that they have the right to choose it legally. Enhanced interrogation must be safe, legal, and...well, let's not say "rare," because we don't want to tie the hands of our patriotic political heroes, right?

6. And since 1-5 are practically self-evident, then it remains that anyone, especially any Catholic, who questions any of this must be a secret anti-Catholic liberal pro-abortion commie pacifist pig-dude.

Like I said, it's a bit of a stretch to call this an argument. But judging from the comment boxes here, it's the one that seems to come up the most often.

I know there are Catholics seriously wrestling with this issue who have not fallen prey to the reductio ad Republicanum; it must be as frustrating for them as it is for us that the discussions here keep veering in the "reductio" direction. But bear with us, and keep posing serious and intelligent questions. There really is a difference between asking, say, "To what extent can coercion that is not torture legitimately be used, if at all?" and asking, "So, you pro-abort closet Obama-worshiper, how many American lives will have to be lost in the next terrorist attack to make you happy?"