They use the same drugs for euthanasia that they use for lethal injections? Don't they know that lethal injections aren't pretty nor are they foolproof. Just look at the recent botchedexecutions. Granted, neither of them used the Nembutal. I hope that they don't resort to the new cocktail because of the Nembutal shortage. By the way, Nembutal isn't flawless either.
I am a firm believer that the Holy Spirit works in everything, even those things that we think are immoral or don't like. God doesn't need perfection to do His work. This story has the potential to show people truth. On one hand, since people don't like the idea of murderers being murdered by the state, we're running out of drugs to kill off our sick and dying. Hopefully, that will help more people to understand that murder is wrong whether it's an individual killing another individual, the state killing someone, or a doctor killing someone in the name of "medicine." Where is the consistency in defending the lives of criminals, but not the ill and dying?
I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live -Deuteronomy 30:19
Earlier this week, the Death Penalty Information Center released a report. They found that 2% of the counties in the United States account for over half of all people on death row and/or executed since 1976. Moreover, they discovered that only 20% of the counties in the United States account for all of the prisoners currently on death row.
The aggressive use of the death penalty by a few counties costs us all money.
When the total costs of the death penalty are divided by the number of executions carried out in a state, the amount can be $30 million per execution. (Source)
This $30 million comes out of our taxes.
Now, before people start in arguing "Well, it would be cheaper to put a bullet in the head" let me share this with you:
The vast majority of that $30 million is not to pay for the method of execution. It is for the 15 years or more of appeals.
So, you say, "Then let's get rid of the appeals." I say:
Since 1973, 140 people have been exonerated from death row. That means they were initially found guilty, but through appeals it was found that they were not guilty at all. So, without the appeals, there would be at least 140 innocent people dead.
Of all the counties in the United States, 85% of all counties have not executed anyone in over 45 years. But in many of those counties, they are still paying for their neighbors who use the death penalty frequently. If you want to know what counties we're talking about:
This map depresses me. As you can see, St. Louis County and St. Louis City both are in the top 15.
Brought on by my latest post on Ignitum Today, I've been engaging in an enlightening discussion with a pro-choice feminist. I want to share with you some of my observations:
1) Pro-lifers need to do a better job at showing that we are for all life, not just the unborn.
One of the first things that the pro-choice feminist threw at me was the stereotype that "Pro-lifers only care about the unborn." We know that your average pro-life activist working at the grassroots level cares about all children. They donate to or volunteer for crisis pregnancy centers to assist women and children with their practical everyday needs. They start homes for pregnant women, like Joseph's House that is being started soon in my town.
Yes, for those of us who are religious, our right hand is not supposed to know what our left is doing (Matthew 6:3), but we're only giving fodder to pro-choice attacks. We need to do a better job at showing that we are for all life. We need to put our money where our mouth is.
Our so-called "pro-life" politicians need to show that they understand that women and children need support (in whatever way they feel comfortable providing that support). Politicians need to realize that being against abortion is not enough to earn the title of being "pro-life."
2) Conservatives and liberals need to talk to each other instead of demonizing one another. Eventually, she and I both agreed that pro-life and pro-choice people care about the poor and people who are already born. I tried to explain to her one of the main differences I've observed between conservatives and liberals: That conservatives want the social safety net to be local and charity based, while liberals are more comfortable with more government intervention. No one wants to kick the poor out on the streets and no one wants anyone to go hungry.
Liberals and conservatives both need to be willing to talk constructively about their differences. The polarization in our culture needs to stop. We aren't getting anything done and we will ultimately tear ourselves to shreds. Instead of staying in our little corners, we need to talk to each other.
When we talk to each other, we can work on the the issues we agree on and we can learn from one another. Refusing to talk to one another is simply a sign of being insecure in our own beliefs. It's a sign of anger and hatred. Be a sign of love today: talk to someone who is across the aisle from you.
3) It all boils down to the existential questions of: When does life begin? What is a human? That's where the real argument is. We can go around in circles all day with protest slogans and signs, but in the end, this is the question that matters. When we are debating abortion, we are debating the meaning of being human.
This is a question that everyone, regardless of your opinion on abortion, needs to ask yourself. And keep asking yourself. It's not a question you can answer and then walk away, you need to analyze your answer. Is this really the right answer? Is this universally true? Human lives are at stake both inside and outside the womb.
Often our answers to what constitutes life inside the womb as implications for those already born as well. For example, let's say you come to the conclusion that life starts when the brain becomes active, what does that mean for our definition of "brain death"?
Science can be used to come to the answer, but science cannot provide the answer. Religion can be used to come to the answer, but religion cannot provide the answer. I think if we could all put down our rhetoric and bickering, we could get somewhere by limiting ourselves to the question at hand: What is a human?
Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares, a sculpture by Evgeniy Vuchetich, given by the Soviet Union to the United Nations in 1959; my picture taken from UN grounds showing sculpture in front of the East River. Picture from commons.wikimedia.org
In days to come,The mountain of the LORD’s houseshall be established as the highest mountainand raised above the hills.All nations shall stream toward it.Many peoples shall come and say:“Come, let us go up to the LORD’s mountain,to the house of the God of Jacob,That he may instruct us in his ways,and we may walk in his paths.”For from Zion shall go forth instruction,and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.He shall judge between the nations,and set terms for many peoples.They shall beat their swords into plowsharesand their spears into pruning hooks;One nation shall not raise the sword against another,nor shall they train for war again. - Isaiah 2:2-4
For some reason, I always had the idea that God was the one who was going to come down and turn our "swords into plowshares" when this world comes to an end. But this morning during morning prayers, I had another idea.
In this passage, people go up to the LORD's mountain so that God can instruct them. After this instruction (and judgement), the people themselves turn their swords to plowshares. So...
Let's think about this for a moment. As we learn about God and follow His will, we find peace within ourselves. We know we're doing the right thing and we know we are on the right path. We are told that peace begins in ourselves, our families, and our communities.
Above is the song "Let there be peace on earth." Keep your comments to yourself. Yes, I hate most church songs popularized post-Vatican II. Not this one. Sue me.
So, maybe here is another point to all of this reading, studying, and catechizing. As we learn more about God, little by little this world will find peace.
This is the 8th part of a discussion occurring right now on Catholicmom.com. We are reading Sherry Weddell's Forming Intentional Disciples. It's a really interesting book and it is never too late to join us.
I skipped last week because my reflection was long and it rambled. I didn't like writing it and I didn't want to force anybody to read it. Hopefully it won't be so bad this time.
Knock on wood
Let's revisit my conversion experience. Here I was: I practicing Wiccan. I had played around with Christian symbols and I'd read some of the Bible simply to prove that the abuse I suffered from my grandfather no longer had any power over my life. I knew all about reincarnation and astrology. I meditated and I practiced yoga. I left offerings to the Goddess a couple times a day.
I walk into a Catholic Church because I had to do a paper on a religion I was unfamiliar with and I had a crush on a Catholic.
And it hits me. I feel at home although I have no idea what is going on. I feel like God/Goddess/Whomever wants me to join this Church. All I had ever heard of about this Church is that it's all about conformity. I've never conformed to anything in my life.
I was angry. I went to the sunken garden. I screamed at God and I cried. I could not understand what was going on or why.
Sunken Garden at Truman State University. Picture not taken by me, I'm not that good.
That night, I went on a walk with one of my friends who was a fallen-away Catholic. He ranted about what the Church teaches and why it's wrong. He told me that the Catholic Church was against both the death penalty and abortion. That made me pause, I had never met anyone who agreed with me on both points. I had always held a consistent life ethic and I thought I was a freak.
I still asked my RCIA teacher when we first met: "Is it okay that I still believe in reincarnation?"
So, openness to Catholicism was a huge problem for me.
Ironically, one of the first retreats I went on had the theme "Surrender." On that retreat, someone told me that I was a model of "surrender" to them. They admired me for leaving behind everything and joining the Catholic Church. This retreat happened only 5 months after my first Mass.
So, how did I do it? I don't know. I just did. People tell me from time to time that I'm a brave person. I really don't see that in myself. I just do what I need to do.
There is no doubt in my mind that God can show Himself to those who do not believe. If He can make me Catholic, He can do anything. I really don't have any advice for people who are struggling to be open. It's still a struggle for me in different areas of my life.
In other Life news: My homestate of Missouri is threatening to bring back the gas chamber since they can't get their hands on the three-drug cocktail for lethal injection and they have a court case pending on whether or not the one-drug injection is humane.
There's nothing humane about killing a human being.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
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, 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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.”
In Ethics class, the professors explained it this way:
If we are in a village in the middle of nowhere and we have no way to keep the community safe from the aggressor, the death penalty is justified for the safety of the group. These circumstances are virtually non-existent in the industrialized world, so there is no reason for any industrialized nation to practice the death penalty.
I've had lots of discussions with people about the death penalty. Being a very active Catholic, many of my friends are politically conservative and have to justify some conservative ideas in light of their Catholic faith. They'll usually grant me that it's not a deterrent, that it costs more than keeping someone behind bars, and that it is not fairly applied in all cases. What they get stuck on is this: justice. Often, those facing the death penalty are convicted of murdering someone. My friends put themselves in the shoes of the victim's family. They know if someone in their family was killed, they'd want someone to pay.
There are a few ways for someone like me to approach this:
1. Ask them to put themselves in the murder's family's shoes. All that the death penalty will accomplish is the creation of two grieving families. It won't bring the victim back.
2. Ask them to consider the definition of the word "justice." The Catechism defines it as:
1807Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”
They've already admitted that it is not fairly dealt out. And our judicial system isn't perfect. It's made of people, and any organization made of people is not going to be perfect. You cannot undo the execution of an innocent man.
The first part of this definition calls for the just person to respect the rights of each person. Many of my friends are against abortion; they hold that the most fundamental right is the right to life. As an unborn child has the right to life, so does everyone else.
Execution in China. China is one of only 3 countries that regularly execute more people than the US. The other three are: Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
3. A very good argument against the death penalty from a conservative perspective is this: it limits government. The death penalty is "an expression of the absolute power of the state." What gives the state the right to take life? The same people who are up in arms about death panels should be up in arms about the death penalty as well.
I really hate starting a post like this. "Despite ethics committee's recommendations..." Does anyone listen to ethics committees anymore? Ethics should not be left to the politicians.
Despite Ethics Committee's recommendations, the President of France has reaffirmed that one of his political goals is to bring voluntary euthanasia to his country. He says that this proposal "will complete and improve the (current) law which was already a step in the direction of human dignity."
What about equating value of life with how "wanted" it is? If a parent doesn't "want" a child, it is not a child and can be disposed of. If a sick person does not "want" to live anymore, their lives are disposable and worthless. It is turning life into a commodity to be created and destroyed at the whim of anyone who has the power and the will.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I dedicated you,
a prophet to the nations I appointed you. -Jeremiah 1:5
I'm a convert to Catholicism. I was one of 73,405 adult baptisms in 2005. I was raised believing in God, but never going to church. I had some bad experiences with a "Southern Baptist" when I was in middle school. After those experiences, I wanted nothing to do with the Christian God. I've been Buddhist and Wiccan. I converted to Catholicism my freshman year in college directly from Wicca.
I was always deeply interested in religion. I remember meditating in the backyard when I was still in elementary school, trying to become one with everything. I always knew there was a God, I never questioned that. I knew there was a God and He (or She) loved me and cared about me. I would characterize my entire religious journey as looking for that God.
I was initially introduced to the Christian God as a hateful and vengeful God. My maternal grandfather was convinced that anyone who was not a heterosexual, white person who went to his particular church in southwestern MO was going to hell. I sent him a letter when I converted to Catholicism. He's probably still praying for my soul.
When I went to college, I was really alone for the first time in my life. I knew no one. I was three hours away from my family. I had the opportunity to redefine myself. I decided to flirt with Christianity just to prove that what my grandfather did to me no longer had any power over me. I wore a cross just to see how it felt. I read the Bible. I visited several nearby churches.
My Conversion Story
I went to the Catholic Newman Center because I had to do a paper on a religion I had no prior exposure to. I was surrounded by Catholics in my dorm building. All of the new friends I was making were Catholic or ex-Catholic. When I went to my first Mass, I had a pretty intense conversion experience. I felt completely at home there even though I didn't understand what was going on.
I was angry with God for calling me into the Catholic Church. What was a free-spirit like me doing joining the Catholic Church? I went on a walk with one of my ex-Catholic friends. He listed all of the things that was wrong in the Church and all of the issues that he disagreed with. I most remember his arguments about the Church being against abortion and the death penalty. He supported both.
That made me stop in my steps. What do you mean the Catholic Church is against abortion and the death penalty? My whole life, all of my family and friends were either for one or the other or both. I was the only weirdo who was against both! And now I find out that this 2000-year-old organization agreed with me and no one had ever bothered to tell me!!!!
That is what started my conversion. I was in RCIA for about a year and a half because I was a non-Christian convert. I would have been in RCIA longer, but I got close to an old man in the parish and they wanted me to get baptized while he was still alive to see it.
Not my baptism because none of my pics exist in digital form
I was baptized by full-immersion in an old, converted horse trough at the Catholic Newman Center. It was a lot like the gentleman in the picture above, except mine was by a Catholic priest, of course. I was baptized as part of a Sunday Mass. Third Sunday of Advent to be precise, which that year fell on December 12th, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Why Do People Leave?
I cannot comment on my parish's retention rate since I have only been here for two years. I can, however, speak to my experience with former Catholics. Many of my friends are no longer active in the Church, although they used to be very active in our Newman Center.
While they all left for different reasons, there is one over-arching theme: We all got used to having a close church family in college. Our Newman Center was like our home away from home. Some of us even called the director "Mom." We did everything together. Many of us practically lived at the Center. Several of us even got our mail there.
Then we came out into the real world. I am yet to find a parish that is truly a family like our Newman Center was a family. True, we're all busy with our jobs and our biological families, but it would be nice to have a community again.
Many of my friends have left the Church because they don't feel at home here anymore. I can understand them completely. Before I was married, I did a lot of parish hopping in hopes of finding a close community again.
Do you have any ideas about how to build community? I think that building a community would go a long ways toward getting our 20 and 30-somethings back.
To read more reflections on Chapter One, head to Catholicmom.com. We're reading Forming Intentional Disciples by Sherry Weddell. It's a good book and it's never too late to join us!
In recent weeks, there have been two high-profile murder cases brought to trial, Jodi Arias and Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell, after a plea deal, has been sentenced to life without parole. Arias will likely be seeing the death penalty. What does that say about the American judicial system?
Kill one man brutally in one state and you're sentenced to die. Kill three newborns and lead to the death of a woman through gross negligence in another state and you're sentenced to life without parole. Does this seem right? Is this a fair and equal application of law that will ultimately lead to the perpetrator's death?
Disclaimer: I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds. Murder is murder, even if it's committed by the state, and murder is always wrong.
Now that I've gotten that off of my chest, there are some major inequalities in the implementation of the death penalty in this country.
For example:
Only 50% of murder victims are white, but over 75% of the murder victims in cases in which the murderer was executed were white.
If you murder someone in the southern or the western US, your chances of the death penalty is higher than if you lived up north or in the east.
Justice isn't blind. It isn't blind at all. The death penalty targets blacks and it targets the poor. Even if you don't agree with me that the entire concept is immoral, you must agree that the system needs a radical overhaul. The poor need the legal counsel they deserve. There are people on death row due to ineffective defense counsel. Racism needs to get out of the courtroom.
Today I'm officially graduating with my Master's in Pastoral Studies! Yay! Now, if I could only find work...
--- 2 ---
Of course, I didn't go into the degree for the dough. I went because first I thought I wanted to be a DRE. Then, I thought I had a calling to be a hospital chaplain. Now, faced with a pile of student loan bills, like many of my fellow grads, I'd just be happy to get a job that is in my field.
So, what am I passionate about? While my academic and personal experience backgrounds are primarily in end-of-life issues, I've had a lot of beginning-of-life issues fall on my plate lately. These include but are not limited to: helping women with unplanned or crisis pregnancies, helping women with painful birth experiences, and reclaiming women's bodies from the abortion and birth control industries. A lot of this stems from the birth of my son. He was unplanned and his birth was traumatic. It makes me very, very sympathetic to women who are not as lucky as I was and those with much scarier stories than I do.
--- 4 ---
Now, the funny thing about life issues is that they are all interrelated. When the use of contraceptives goes up, so does the abortion rate (I know the citation there is biased, just bear with me). When we start killing severely handicapped babies to "spare them pain", we are pressuring adults with disabilities to die as well. On the other side of that coin, I find it remarkably inconsistent for those who are "pro-life" to be war-mongers and pro-death penalty as well. For faithful Catholics, election day should be torture, because we cannot with a clear conscience vote either Republican or Democrat. It's as simple as that.
If one contends, as we do, that the right of
every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil
consensus, then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop
at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among
us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless
among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented
immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care.
—Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in Consistent Ethic of Life (Sheed & Ward)
--- 6 ---
On a lighter note, another video my confirmation kids shared with me:
--- 7 ---
So, a chapter of my life is over. I don't have to learn anymore, do I?
Nope, once a theology student, always a theology student. Especially if said theology student is wanting to become a Lay Dominican.
I saw on Patheos that they currently have a challenge for their bloggers to explain why they follow their particular faith in 200 words or less. I'm clearly not a Patheos blogger, but the challenge looks like fun. So, here I go....
Why am I Catholic?
I searched for a religious tradition to call my own for a very long time. I tried out everything and anything. The one constant was that I have always believed in God and that God was infinitely loving and forgiving. My parents had taught me that. My freshman year of college, I found myself alone going through great difficulties. At the Catholic Newman Center, I found a community that would support me.
I met the God I had been looking for. In Catholicism, I found a God that loved me enough to die for me. This God wanted to be completely united with me in the Eucharist. This God didn't care how many times I screwed up in life, I could always come back to Him in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I found a faith that embraced all life. I have always had a consistent life ethic. I am anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, anti-war in nearly all circumstances. I found a faith that affirmed the body and the physical world. Attending Mass is a sensory experience. God didn't just create a soul, He created an embodied soul. God Himself became man.
There we go...
That's 190 words. It covers what I like about Catholicism and a very brief summary of my faith history. Here are links to a few of my favorites on Patheos:
I'm done. This is it. I'm politically liberal, but I am sick and tired of people on my side-of-the-fence's pro-abortion rhetoric. Watch this:
I would ask her to listen to herself. She is judging a being, that she admits has the potential to someday be a person, based on how much a financial burden they are. So, to her, people are only worth how much they can produce? How much of a financial burden they are?
Let's expand this logic. There are there are over 1.5 million people living in long term care facilities in the US. They don't have jobs. Many of them are not mentally or physically capable of work. I'm sure it costs quite a bit to keep them all alive between the room and board and all the medications. Using her logic, why don't we kill them all?
Oh, that's right. Because killing the disabled or the elderly is murder.
She says that the belief that the fertilized egg is a person is just that, a belief. So apparently science can tell us when life begins? Science cannot tell us definitively when life ends, how can science tell us when it begins? Life is the ultimate mystery. No one will ever be able to figure out exactly how it works. No one knows where it comes from or where it ends because newborn babies don't talk and, except for maybe that Jesus guy, no one has ever come back from the grave. This is purely the realm of philosophy and religion. Science cannot touch it, just like science cannot touch God.
Her junk science is judging, at the very least, a unique grouping of human cells to only be worth as much as it can be worth on the marketplace. It is putting a financial value on life. Regardless of your beliefs on when life begins, you must see the inherent immorality of such a judgement. It is morally repugnant to judge anyone, even a "potential human," based on their economic usefulness.
I know that life starts at conception, but even if I ignore that fact, Melissa Harris-Perry's logic is dangerous and deeply morally flawed.
I stopped watching CNN a while back because they had one "journalist" who had clearly forgotten how to do an appropriate interview. Now, between this and Toure, I will no longer be watching MSNBC. I only watch FOX NEWS sometimes for the humor; I can't believe rational, intelligent people actually believe some of the spin on that channel. So, I guess I'll start reading the newspaper?
I even fell into it myself. We were having a discussion yesterday in my Bible study about everything that was wrong in the Church and the new Pope. I said, "Church leaders in the southern hemisphere tend to be more involved in social justice issues tempered with being very socially conservative."
It drives me nuts when other people do it. I hate it when comparisons are made between the social justice Catholics and the orthodox Catholics. As if you have to be one or the other, you can't be both. But isn't real Catholicism both? If one really understood the Church and tried to live out her teachings, you'd have to be both.
One of the biggest pro-choice complaints is that pro-lifers seem to be willing to go to the ends of the earth to protect the child in the womb but won't lift a finger to help a child already born. This Pope, chosen from the ends of the world, clearly cares for children born and unborn and has an understanding of what women with unplanned pregnancies go through.
So, here we go: A Pope that talks the talk and walks the walk, going above and beyond the call of duty to truly live out the Gospel in his everyday life. The more I learn about him, the more I think he is exactly what the Church today needs. A perfect synthesis of the "social justice Catholic" and the "pro-life Catholic." The Cardinals seem to have done a wonderful job. And, note to reader: smack me if you ever hear me pit these two against each other ever again.
When it comes to morality questions, I tend to follow my gut. If I feel a moral discomfort about something, even if I can't put words to my concern, I don't do it. Unless I have grave reasons to go against my intuition, I do not support things that make me feel uncomfortable. When I first heard about the drone program (months before the NBC leaked memo), I didn't like them. I wasn't able to say why. Just something seemed inherently unfair about sending unmanned machines in to assassinate people with "smart" bombs even if those people were sworn enemies of the US.
I know all of this is old news, but I wanted to think about it long and hard before I said anything. My specialty is medical ethics, not war. Although I did come across a very insightful article that made a connection between being anti-abortion and anti-drones. The first time I heard an argument that gave voice to my concerns however was through The Daily Show's Jon Stewart:
Now, he did get criticized by a lot of people for not being harder on her. But this did get the ball rolling in my mind about what exactly about this program bugs me. What was it? When the memo leaked, I found more voices in the media giving words to my feelings. In the following video from MSNBC's The Cycle, I find myself agreeing strongly with conservative talking head, SE Cupp.
So, what does my Church say? First of all, my Church would applaud my tendency to follow my gut. Assuming one's conscience is formed by Tradition and Scripture (or at least one makes an earnest attempt to form it by the Church), one can always trust one's conscience.
Since this controversy has hit the fan, the USCCB has not issued a statement specifically about the drones, but they have said things about the "war on terror" in general and in 2011 they did write an open letter to our National Security Advisor saying "...we encourage the US to review the use of unmanned drones." In last year's Rosary Novena for Life and Liberty, drone aircraft is mentioned as an example of how the technology used in killing is more advanced, but "the end result is the same for the victims."
In looking through the Catechism (CCC) and statements made by the Bishops I run into a little problem. How the heck do you categorize drone strikes? Do I look up war? Do I look up self-defense? What about assassination? Luckily for me, all of these things say similar things.
In the case of the death penalty (CCC 2267) and in war (A Pastoral Message: Living with Faith and Hope After September 11), we cannot use lethal force without absolute certainty that we are punishing the correct person. This requires if not due process than at least an accountability structure in place.
"Accountability and transparency" is notably lacking in this instance. It seems as if we simply need a high-ranking official, presumably President Obama, to make the phone call and it's as good as done. Where is the certainty in that?
Side-rant: This is one of the areas where this entire issue makes me sick (you know, aside from civilian casualties). Where are the anti-war activists? I belong to basically every tree-hugger mailing list in the US and I have never received anything about these drones. I had to actively search on the Amnesty International site to see one report and an action. To put this into perspective, torture has it's own section. For the record, I'm a pro-life Democrat (as near impossible as that is some days) and it makes me sick to see so many liberals and Democrats defend the president out of some kind of party loyalty. The same Democrats who questioned the policy under Bush are defending its expansion under Obama. (Somearticlesaboutit.) What? Because you trust Obama more? I trust no human being with this kind of power. We are not God. Now back to your regular programming...
Grave and Certain Threat
Just War Theory (as summarized CCC 2309) clearly states that:
"The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain."
The memo states that the person targeted for the drone strike must be an "imminent threat." Commentator after commentator after commentator has pointed out that "imminent threat" is twisted and turned nearly meaningless in this policy. So, this requirement of "just war" is arguably not met. Certainly, terrorism is lasting and grave, but without some sort of due process (see above), how can you be determine that a particular person is imminently going to attack? In order for an act of war to be just, it must be in response to a real threat, not an imagined one.
Proportionate Response
In CCC 2264, St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted saying that moderate means of self-defense is always morally licit because one is bound to care for one's own life more than another's. Even if lethal means are necessary, it is acceptable to do whatever you need to do to defend your life. That said, it is unlawful to use more force than necessary. The drone policy reflects this in stating that capture must be infeasible. But, once again, who is the judge of that? And, is capture or death the only way we can defend ourselves? Would it be more proportionate to use the billions we're spending on drones in beefing up security? I'm sorry that I have more questions than answers on this issue, but I think these questions need to be raised.
Prospects of Success
Killing one terrorist inspires many others. Our war on terror isn't gaining us any friends in the middle east. A war is only just if there are "serious prospects of success" (CCC 2309). IMHO, this part of Just War Theory has not been met in a very, very long time in any of our armed conflicts. But I regress, I have no evidence for the first two sentences in this paragraph. All I have are quotes from people who know the region much better than I do and my own observation seeing terrorists celebrated as martyrs.
My conclusion, I know that what is legal is not always moral and what is illegal is not always immoral, but it does bother me that only a third of all supporters of drones are concerned about the legality. I have recently lost all respect for one of SE Cupp's colleagues on The Cycle over this very thing (granted, he didn't have very far to fall).
"The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. 'The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.'"
People who are for the drone program have said that we are in war, we are in a different kind of war, so anything goes to defend ourselves. This is fundamentally wrong. The state of war does not rob our enemy of his or her humanity. Because they are against us does not make them any less human than those who are for us. This is the primary reason that my conscience cannot support our current use of drones.
My Catholic conclusion, looking at Just War Theory and statements made by the bishops, it would seem as if the appropriate Catholic response would be to question the morality of how this program functions. I could see, however, how a Catholic in good conscience could support the program in general.
For example: CCC 2309 states:
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Although I don't agree with ipso facto judging many lives to be more valuable than one (each life is infinitely valuable), our best estimate is that the number of civilian casualties of drones is in the hundreds while the attacks on 9/11 killed nearly 3,000. So, it can be argued that the evils of drones are not as bad as the evils of terrorism that the drones protect us from. But I still say we need more transparency and oversight.
.jpg)
