Mormonism in Public Life

In light the pending presidential candidacy of Republican Mitt Romney, Damon Linker has penned a provocative treatise in the New Republic, questioning whether it would be healthy for the country to have a Mormon president. While I am not going to comment on that particular question, he does raise some of the problems presented by Mormon theology. When I break it down, is seems a mix of different dubious ideas, chiefly Gnosticism, American exceptionalism, and voluntarism.

First, Gnosticism. This is not something Linker deals with in great detail, but it is there nonetheless. The premise of Mormonism is that historical Christianity is an apostate Church, and that the real truth was revealed to a small number of people (Joseph Smith and his family and friends). Moreover, the Mormon conception of God is not an uncreated Supreme Being who created everything from nothing, but "a finite being who evolved into his present state of divinity from a condition very much like our own and then merely 'organized' preexisting matter in order to form the world." And good Mormons get to inherit their own planets after death, so becoming in the future what God is today (denying a discontinuity between God and creation is a core tenet of Gnosticism). As noted by eminent scholar N.T. Wright, a danger with Gnosticism is that it plays up individualism, which can easily morph into narcissism.

Gnosticism certainly contributes to the notion of American exceptionalism that emanates from both Mormonism and certain strands of Protestantism. Gnostic elitism often views America as unique, especially blessed by God, and not constrained by the same rules and constraints as other countries. More dangerously, the dualism that underpins Gnosticism feeds the dualism that operates in much of recent American foreign policy, dividing the world into good and evil. Mormonism is especially prone to this kind of thinking, because--as Linker shows clearly-- it grants an exalted role to America. As Linker notes:

"Smith produced a 500-page document, The Book of Mormon, containing the record of an ancient civilization, descended from the biblical Israelites, that supposedly lived, flourished, and collapsed in the Americas 1,000 years before the arrival of Christopher Columbus. Jesus Christ visited these people after his resurrection in Jerusalem, spreading his gospel in the New World and planting the seeds of its rebirth many centuries later by Smith himself. In later revelations, Smith went even further in placing the United States--both geographically and politically--at the focal point of sacred history. The Garden of Eden, he claimed, was located in Jackson County, Missouri. The American Founders were 'raised up' by God in order to establish a free government that would allow the restoration to occur and the LDS Church to spread the restored gospel throughout the nation and the world."

Even more than this:

"The centrality of the United States to Mormon theology extends beyond the past and present to encompass the end times as well. Like many of the religious groups to emerge from the Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century, Mormons are millennialists who believe themselves to be living in the years just prior to the second coming of Christ; hence the words 'latter day' in the church's official title. Where the LDS differs from other communities gripped by eschatology, however, is in the vital role it envisions the United States playing in the end times. The Mormon 'Articles of Faith' teach that, when Christ returns, he will reign 'personally upon the earth' for 1,000 years, and LDS interpretations of a passage in Isaiah have led some to conclude that this rule will be directed from two locations--one in Jerusalem and the other in 'Zion' (the United States). This belief has caused Mormons to view U.S. politics as a stage on which the ultimate divine drama is likely to play itself out, with a Mormon in the leading role."

This is scary from the point of view of American foreign policy, to say the least.

And then there is voluntarism. Voluntarism is the contention that God should be seen as a force of pure will, not intelligence or reason, and that God's purposes are essentially arbitrary. In contrast, the Catholic view is that God is rational (Logos), which means that God is truth and infinite Intelligence. I've discussed the influence of voluntarism on Protestant fundamentalism and Islam on this blog before. Pope Benedict's questioning about whether the voluntarist spirit in modern Islam leads to misplaced compulsion and violence in religion was what handed him in hot water a few months ago.

Although Linker does not use this term, one of his chief criticisms of Mormon doctrine is that it is suffused by voluntarism. Not only does Mormonism follow Islam and Protestantism by seeing a book as the source of revelation, but its peculiar approach to prophecy makes it stand apart. In a nutshell, the leader of Mormonism is regarded as a prophet of God. As Linker notes: "Mormonism opens the door to prophetically inspired acts and innovations, the content of which cannot be predetermined in any way." There is simply no rationalist tradition to "check the veracity of prophetic pronouncements." Moreover, the nature of the Mormon God suggests that "there is simply no room for a natural morality in Mormon theology, since Mormonism tacitly denies that the natural world possesses any intrinsic or God-given moral purpose." Linker himself relates a frightening personal story from the days when he taught at Brigham Young University: when he asked his students how they would respond if the prophet in Salt Lake City commanded them to commit murder, numerous Mormon students said they would do so without question. Now, that is voluntarism.

I am not suggesting that Mormonism is currently a threat to the United States or to the world. But these questions certainly deserve attention if a Romney candidacy gains traction. And they are far more relevant than whether or not Romney truly believes gay marriage should be banned or not.

Krugman on Medicare

Paul Krugman has a great piece on health care in the New York Times. His basic premise is an obvious one: traditional Medicare, a single-payer system (the government pays doctors and hospitals) turns out to be a lot more efficient than private sector alternatives. The first instinct of Republicans is to turn to the market. In many cases, that can be justified as markets are often (typically?) more efficient than the government. But not with health care. There is a good reason that the United States spends far more (as a percent of GDP) than the average European country on health care, and yet gets less value for its money.

In the 1990s, the government tried to entice people to leave traditional Medicare for private plans, with the government paying a fee instead to the HMO. The idea was that the profit motive would keep costs down. But it didn't work out that way. HMOs started by engaging in adverse selection: deliberately picking on the healthiest seniors. But when this practice ended, it turned out that HMOs could simply not compete with Medicare. Why? The latter is efficiently run, with no huge overhead.

That wasn't the end. Bush came along. Bush, of course never paid much heed to the "reality-based community" and let ideology trump empirical assessment. In 2003, the administration increased payments to HMOs, and heavily subsidized them. This program now costs 11 percent more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare. Clearly, this a a direct transfer from the taxpayer to the insurance industry. Standard Bush administration practice, really.

So far so good. Now the drug companies want a piece of the action. In fact, Bush's Medicare drug coverage (Medicare Part D) is even worse: traditional Medicare is totally out of the picture, as the government does not pay directly for the drug. Instead, you join a private insurance plan, and the government then sends out the subsidy. This is appalling on two levels. First, the government is prohibited from negotiating prices with the drug companies. Of course, Republicans will tell you this is "socialist price controls" or something like it. Nonsense! It's a fair negotiation between two players in the market (technically, the government takes advantage ot is monopsony power). This, plus the skim that the insurance company takes for acting as middleman, pushes up costs dramatically. Doesn't this sound like Tony Soprano in charge of health care?

Krugman concludes with a moral point: "The costs imposed on Medicare by gratuitous privatization are almost certainly higher than the cost of providing health insurance to the eight million children in the United States who lack coverage". This is a direct transfer of resources from the poor and the uninsured to the insurance and drug industries (two of the biggest lobbyists, by the way). Then again, right-wing Catholics with scoff at this problem as the more application of "prudential judgment". See no evil.

More on Dulles, John Paul, and the Death Penalty

This is a follow-up to my previous post on the death penalty, based on further reflection on Cardinal Dulles's insightful essay. The starting point, as always, must be John Paul in Evangelium Vitae:

"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."

Although it is well established that there are (in traditional Catholic teaching) other purposes of capital punishment, especially retributive justice, some commentators interpret John Paul as concluding that only defense against the criminal matters today. One such person is none other than Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who declares "... I take the encyclical... to mean that retribution is not a valid purpose of capital punishment". With great arrogance, Scalia declares the pope to be wrong, calling for "new staffers at the Congregation for Prudence in the Vatican". But Scalia's view is also widespread among those who oppose the death penalty, as it is admirably simple and straightforward: the purpose of punishment is simply to protect society, and that can be done without shedding blood. Case closed.

But Dulles happens to think that this view is fundamentally flawed. He notes that the pope says nothing that suggests the traditional understanding was wrong, and indeed writes in Evangelium Vitae that:

"The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". 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."

Punishment needs to defend public order, and public order goes beyond a narrow definition of pure protection from the criminal. In John Paul's language, the protection of society is broader than merely defending against the criminal. In particular, the need for retributive justice flows from the fact that sin requires the deprivation of some good, which has been interpreted to include temporal life. But Dulles suggests that this has been stripped of all meaning in modern secular societies where the death penalty is more likely to reflect vengeance than the divine order of justice. In other words, the death penalty becomes a mere instrument of vengeance, which is not only immoral, but can yield disproportionate evil effects.

This is a neat argument, and has the benefit of allowing continuity with Catholic teaching. Not only defense against the criminal but also retribution call for a different approach in modern society. But there is a weakness embedded in this argument: it supposes that secular leaders in times past were better motivated than the secular authorities today. I'm not sure I buy that, quite frankly. Yes, authorities in past times may have been more attuned to the concept of divine justice, but did the death penalty in practice conform to this? Could we not argue that human weakness makes it exceedingly difficult for us to ever meet the standard of true retributive justice absent all notion of vengeance, and that, for that reason, the death penalty is nearly always wrong (or at least reduced to John Paul's narrow conditions)?

This approach would treat development in the death penalty as akin to the development of doctrine on, say, slavery. It took a long time to fully realize the importance of human dignity embedded in the deposit of faith. Many have taken this approach, including Archbishop Chaput of Denver, regularly regarded as one of the more conservative churchmen in the United States. Chaput castigates Scalia for his dissent, and concludes that "humans learn the hard way, but eventually we do learn". He mentions slavery. He notes that we no longer execute horse thieves.
I think it is therefore possible to bring the Scalia position and the Dulles position closer together. We would do so by acknowledging that, in some theoretical sense, retributive justice is a purpose of punishment, and that can sometimes call for the penalty of death. But it is almost impossible to achieve this in practice, without baser motives (chiefly revenge) entering the picture. Dulles argues that it is less necessary in modern times, owing largely to the increasing irrelevance of retributive justice. But it can also be argued that a clearer understanding of human dignity meant that it was applied far too lightly in the past as well as today, based on an overly-optimistic view of the motivation of the executioners. This is also compatible with John Paul's teaching.

Ultimately, this explains the different perceptions about the death penalty in the United States and Europe. Scalia claims that since Europe has stopped believing in divine justice, the death of the body is the worst thing that can happen, rendering the death penalty a horrendous punishment. But, as Chaput notes, this misses the point. Europe is reacting to a century of "state-sponsored violence against the human person in the name of collective ideals." It is no accident that Europeans now look upon state-sanctioned retribution with horror. The amount of bloodshed witnessed throughout the 20th century led to a transformation in European thinking about war and capital punishment, a positive development that the United States lags.

Whatever position you accept, the real focus is (and should be) on vengeance, and this was clearly on the minds of the Vatican officials when they spoke about Saddam's hanging. This is true whether or not we accept Dulles's nuanced views. Various American commentators who denounced the Vatican commentators as "euro-weenies" and suchlike fail to appreciate this, and it is they (not the Vatican) who are out of step with the Catholic approach to the death penalty.

Egan Makes Sense

Rocco Palmo reports an interview with Cardinal Egan in New York in which he was asked what he thought of two potential New Yorkers (Clinton and Giuliani) running for president in 2008.

Seemingly without a flinch, Egan replied, "They're all friends of mine."To reiterate the point, the cardinal himself mentioned former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican who's also a pro-choice Catholic, as a "friend." "Mayor Giuliani's a friend of mine, Senator Clinton is a friend of mine and whomever else you want to name," Egan said. "And I've been very, very careful, I hope you notice. Never have I got into partisan politics of any kind at all."

Now, this is the right answer. And it is the answer the vast majority of bishops would give. Unfortunately, the media gives far too much attention to that small minority (you can count them on one hand) who tell people to vote Republican.

Avery Dulles, Saddam Hussein, and the Death Penalty

Following up on yesterday's post on the the Vatican reaction to Saddam's execution, I would like to delve a little more deeply into Church teachings pertaining to the death penalty. To guide me, I will take advantage of an excellent essay by Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., entitled Catholicism and Capital Punishment from 2001 on this matter. One of the reasons for this is that some who defend the execution of Saddam (intelligently, as opposed to the blood-baying brigade), such as Stephen Bainbridge, appeal to Dulles's work.

One of Dulles's key premises is that notion of an absolute right to life among the guilty as well as the innocent finds little support from church teachings. The right of the authorities to execute criminals is pretty much taken for granted in the New Testament, and even Jesus (while never exhorting violence) never questions it. The early church, from St. Paul onwards, took a similar view. Leading theologians from Augustine to Aquinas down to John Henry Newman thought likewise.

Dulles concludes that the Church has always taught that (i) crime deserves punishment in this life as well as the next, and (ii) the state has the authority to punish, which can include the death penalty. He rejects what he refers to as the absolutist position. This is not new, as pacifist groups have existed in various manifestations throughout the history of the Church. Modern day Catholic absolutists would argue that past generations failed to fully appreciate the fact that God-given human dignity called for an unambiguous respect for life, and that this was always implicit (if a little clouded) in revelation.

But Dulles remains unconvinced, and not only because of the weight of past Church teaching. He notes that, in the modern incarnation, the opposition to the death penalty is very much a product a secular humanism, a philosophy that denies any role for the transcendent in public life.

How then should the Church judge capital punishment? Dulles starts by noting that punishment can serve four distinct purposes: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. A key question is how these four roles are served by the death penalty. As far as rehabilitation is concerned, the death penalty clearly doesn't do the job, although there are cases when impending death brings about repentance (remember Dead Man Walking?). Executing a criminal surely protects society, but what if there are bloodless ways of doing the same thing? As for deterrence, Dulles is extremely cautious, noting that the Church condemns acts that deprive a person of his/her God-given dignity, such as torture, that could easily be used for purposes of deterrence.

This brings us to retribution, the trickiest and most understood of the four purposes. What does this mean? For a start, it is most certainly not vengeance and should never be construed as such. Aquinas argued that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, which in serious cases, means the good or temporal or even eternal life. By this notion, the death penalty provides the wrongdoer with a means of expiation, and allows him/her avoid punishment after death. Of course, retribution by the state is strictly limited, and can only be "a symbolic anticipation of God's perfect justice".

There are also numerous arguments that can be specifically employed against the death penalty. First, the innocent can die. Some countries use "biased or kangaroo courts". Others (including parts of the United States) often deny the poor adequate representation and counsel. And even the best system can simply make mistakes. Second, capital punishment can cheapen the value of life in general, and lead to greater ills in society. And third, the death penalty in practice is most often used a tool of revenge, not authentic justice.

So where do we stand? Weighing the pros and cons, Dulles argues that the death penalty can be justified when "it is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment, and when it does not have disproportionate evil effects". The word necessary is carefully chosen. This brings us to his core conclusion: the Church today is opposed to the death penalty not because it believes executing criminals is always and everywhere wrong, but because "on balance, it does more harm than good". This is also is accord with past Church teaching on the subject.

In arriving at this opinion, a few key reasons stand out. First, in modern society with developments in the penal system, it is nearly always possible to secure defense against the criminal without resort to the death penalty. This is exactly what Pope John Paul was getting at in Evangelium Vitae when he wrote that "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."

Second, the notion of retribution has little meaning in modern secular society, where those who impose the death penalty do not have Aquinas's strict conditions in mind. Certainly, the "symbolic anticipation of God's perfect justice" is not on the minds of the authorities! And this can have consequences that are best avoided. As Dulles puts it, in the modern perspective, "the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group". In other words, retribution morphs into vengeance, which is always wrong. This insight, is, I believe, a crucially important argument against the death penalty in modern times, on par with John Paul's necessity principle.

So, these factors, combined with other negative consequences (such as the possibility of executing an innocent person) tip the scales decisively against the death penalty.

And what about Saddam Hussein? Stephen Bainbridge, appealing to this very same Dulles essay, defends his execution on the grounds that "the risk of a return by Saddam to power was non-negligible." This strikes me as overly-forced reasoning, and an overly-narrow view of Dulles's position. To justify the execution based on the imminent restoration of Saddam's rule is a bit of a stretch, especially in an Iraq increasing dominated by powerful and militant Shia groups. And anyway, the key to Dulles's argument is the general proposition that the death penalty does more harm than good. We need to consider all of the issues, not merely the fact that defense against the criminal might be ill-served by a potential escape. In particular, the execution of Saddam clearly reflects vengeance rather than retributive justice. In Iraq, this is Dulles's argument on steroids, and this argument alone easily tips the scales against the execution. Just look at the scene: a "dank, filthy shed", hooded Shia militia members mockingly shouting "Moqtada" after their thug of a leader, a senior Shia official accused on making a "snuff video" on his cell-phone of the execution, leaked immediately. This is as far from Thomas Aquinas as can possibly be imagined!

This is what the much-maligned Cardinal Martino was getting at when he denounced the sentence as "killing for vindication". And what the Vatican press statement meant when it noted that "The execution of the guilty party is not a path to reconstruct justice and to reconcile society. Indeed, there is the risk that, on the contrary, it may augment the spirit of revenge and sow seeds of new violence." These statements are fully consistent with the weight of past Church teaching on the death penalty, despite the contention among some on the right that they merely reflect the thinking of a bunch of effete euro-weenies. There is some parallel here between the way many on the American right cheered Saddam's execution, and the way they supported both the Iraq and Lebanon wars. What they fail to grasp is that actions can have disproportionate evil consequences, all the more so if vengeance enters the picture.

Hitchens on Saddam's Excecution

I'm not a big fan of Christopher Hitchens, but this article is on the mark. Hitchens decries the tardy execution of Saddam and sees in it a pitiful augury of things to come in Iraq. It is a sad state of affairs when the most dignified person in the room is a mass murderer. Hitchens:

"The zoolike scenes in that dank, filthy shed (it seems that those attending were not even asked to turn off their cell phones or forbidden to use them to record souvenir film) were more like a lynching than an execution... How could it have come to this? Did U.S. officials know that the designated "executioners" would be the unwashed goons of Muqtada Sadr's "Mahdi Army"—the same sort of thugs who killed Abdul Majid al-Khoei in Najaf just after the liberation and who indulge in extra-judicial murder of Iraqis every night and day? Did our envoys and representatives ask for any sort of assurances before turning over a prisoner who was being held under the Geneva Conventions? According to the New York Times, there do seem to have been a few insipid misgivings about the timing and the haste, but these appear to have been dissolved soon enough and replaced by a fatalistic passivity that amounts, in theory and practice, to acquiescence in a crude Shiite coup d'état. Thus, far from bringing anything like "closure," the hanging ensures that the poison of Saddamism will stay in the Iraqi bloodstream, mingling with other related infections such as confessional fanaticism and the sort of video sadism that has until now been the prerogative of al-Qaida's dehumanized ghouls. We have helped to officiate at a human sacrifice. For shame."

The Vatican was absolutely right. How many more evil fruits from the Bush administration's supreme folly have still to ripen?

Torture and Blasphemy

The horrors of the torture regime unleashed by the Bush administration continue to emerge, and to shock. This time, the torturers at Guantanamo manage not only to degrade Islam, but also Catholicism. As reported by the Washington Post:

"FBI agents witnessed possible mistreatment of the Koran at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including at least one instance in which an interrogator squatted over Islam's holy text in an apparent attempt to offend a captive, according to bureau documents released yesterday.... They acknowledged that soldiers and interrogators had kicked the Koran, had stood on it and, in one case, had inadvertently sprayed urine on a copy... female interrogators would sometimes wet their hands and touch detainees' faces in order to interrupt their prayers."

And then there is this:

"In a previously unreported allegation, one interrogator bragged to an FBI agent that he had forced a prisoner to listen to "Satanic black metal music for hours," then dressed as a Catholic priest before "baptizing" him."

Beautiful. The Bush administration is the great defender of religion, at least against Democrats during elections, but in the real world, sees no problem resorting to despicable blasphemy.

The Church and the Execution of Saddam Hussein

Back in November, when the death penalty was imposed on Saddam Hussein, the Vatican opposed it. Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, declared that "... punishing a crime with another crime, which is what killing for vindication is, would mean that we are still at the point of demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." In other words, vengeance should not guide policy. When Saddam was hanged, the director of Press Office of the Holy See, Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J., issued the following statement:

"Capital punishment is always tragic news, a motive of sadness, even when it’s a case of a person guilty of grave crimes. The position of the Catholic Church against the death penalty has been confirmed many times. The execution of the guilty party is not a path to reconstruct justice and to reconcile society. Indeed, there is the risk that, on the contrary, it may augment the spirit of revenge and sow seeds of new violence. In this dark time in the life of the Iraqi people, it can only be hoped that all the responsible parties truly will make every effort so that, in this dramatic situation, possibilities of reconciliation and peace may finally be opened."

Well spoken, indeed. The problem is, the right-wing chorus in the United States was reveling in the death of Saddam, and seemed disinclined to listen to the Vatican. No real surprise there. The continued vehement support for the death penalty in the United States in part reflects a bad Calvinist theology that holds that God divides the world into the saved and the damned, and that the latter can be disposed of without worry. But many on the Catholic right have joined the chorus. Without a trace of irony, a blogger with a site named The Cafeteria is Closed stated that "justice has been done" when the Vatican said something rather different. And Jimmy Akin, the guy who thinks that waterboarding may not be torture in a ticking bomb scenario, also claims that justice has been done, after having denounced Cardinal Martino for his earlier statement as the "sloppy language" of "European churchmen". Note the snide tone. Yes, indeed, when the Church takes a position that goes against the prevailing ethos and ideology of the United States right-wing (such as the love affair with the death penalty, or war as a solution to the world's problems), it is dismissed as the rantings of a bunch a effete euro weenies. Of course, the notion that Pope Benedict is not 100 percent behind a statement issued by his press secretary is ludicrous.

Getting back to basics, while the Church is an adamant opponent of the death penalty, it is not the case that the death penalty is always and everywhere wrong. And this is the loophole that many try to seize upon. But, upon careful reflection, this door just won't open. The Catechism (#2267) states the position:

"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."

The latter quote is taken from John Paul's 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, which elaborates:

"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 other words, the death penalty is only licit when there is no other way to protect society from the criminal. Think of a nomadic society, for example. Perhaps the closest modern case would be a country like Somalia with no functioning state and no state monopoly on the use of force. But in modern times, these conditions are indeed "very rare, if not practically non-existent" and certainly so in the western world. In a commentary on the Catechism, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna (a close friend of the pope, and one of the leading intellectuals in the Church) notes that:

"In practice, again and again, the Pope speaks out decisively against the application of the death penalty and asks pardon for the one sentenced to death. The Church knows that crimes will take place as long as the evil of responding violently to violence persists and love of neighbor, indeed, love of enemy is not fully realized. In the light of the Gospel the Church will continue in practice, with ever greater clarity and determination, to proclaim love for one's enemies, as Jesus did, and to say No to the death penalty"

The last quote is lifted shamelessly from a thoughtful post on the issue by a blogger (Michael Joseph) on a site called Evangelical Catholicism. This puts John Paul's teachings into perspective, and gives Cardinal Martino's statement, as well as Father Lombardi's press statement, greater resonance. For Martino's statement is not "sloppy", it is in full accord with Catholic teaching on the matter. For there is little doubt that the execution of Saddam will not solve any problems in Iraq. There is little doubt that it will merely fan further the flames of sectarian hatred. And the Iraqi people would have just as safe from Saddam in prison as Saddam dead. On the latter point, Stephen Bainbridge makes the only coherent Catholic argument in favor of the execution, that in the sorry mess that is Iraq, "the risk of a return by Saddam to power was non-negligible." But this is a stretch. Sure, a Saddam-like figure may well emerge, although the likelihood is that he will be Shia rather than Sunni. But that is another story...

2006: Annus Horribilis

What a miserable year! I don’t say this lightly, but only after some reflection. It’s not just that on the political end the list of existing and exacerbating conflagrations seemed endless—Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, Somalia, and Sri Lanka mark but not exhaust that list. Democratic processes did not improve, and indeed weakened, in a number of places—Russia, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Egypt to name a few. Nothing really was done about global warming or oil dependency, the WTO process was paralyzed, Europe’s longstanding respect for diversity became suspect, the misguided, dangerous, and wasteful “war against terror” continued to confound and anger one-fifth of the world’s population, and, to really sum up the horribleness of 2006, worldwide arms spending went through the roof—a clear harbinger for worse things to come.

Yes, the Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate, ten presidential elections were held in Latin America in a decisive signal toward consolidation of the democratic process in that region, a group of poor countries received substantial debt relief, emerging Asian economies marched on, and, and I say this charitably, world markets came across as more capable of handling major shocks than conventionally perceived. On a net basis, however, bad things and bad news dominated the good during this sad, sad year.

It is not easy to be hopeful about 2007 either. In fact, it may well give 2006 a run for its money as America’s capricious focus (or the lack of it) on global issues here and there undermine further any international initiative to protect the global climate, reduce trade barriers, alleviate poverty, reduce nuclear proliferation, etc. While America struggles, it is hard to see anything else than more of the same: pockets of prosperity and promise here and there, grinding misery and violence and sheer hopelessness in many more places.

Yet, as the spread of the internet continues to complement globalization, and as the economic pull of emerging India and China become even stronger, one can dare to hope that it is not all doom and gloom. May be there is hope at the political end as well: could 2007 see a renewed attempt to bring the Israelis to ease up on their murderous occupation of the West Bank and the blockade on Gaza? May be, just may be, the U.S. will choose to bring Iran and Syria to the table to raise the hope for peace in Iraq. The burden for much of this is on the leadership of the Democrats, which I hope will focus on challenging the White House in getting things done, as opposed to fixating on the 2008 Presidential elections.

Also, in my narrow, personal sphere, as I see friends rejoice with their first-borns, bright eyed, enormously gifted nieces and nephews embrace higher education and work, and perhaps most importantly, reason and faith co-mingle without any contradiction in my father’s life, I see a ray of light. When Muhammad Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace Laureate, said audaciously that he envisions a future when people will visit museums to see what poverty used to be all about, he exemplified the capacity of the human mind to generate visions that can galvanize a generation. A world without challenge and disappointment is impossible, but as new spirits join this planet and new minds enter the world dynamic, may be we can all expect raindrops of good to shower on us in the new-year, giving us energy to move and look forward.

2007, here we come.

Who in 2008?

Now that the Democrats seem on the ascendancy, and seem poised to beat the Southern Party in the 2008 presidential election (barring a major change in circumstances), the question arises: who? Well, that's unclear, to say the least. I think that the number of candidates will increase as victory seems more likely (Mark Warner seems to be rethinking his decision not to run).

For me, though, it boils down to Clinton, Gore, or Obama. Sorry, I see Edwards as an empty suit, and I know nothing about Vilsack. Clark did not impress the first time around. And Kerry.. well, he's clearly the best candidate in his own mind!

Let's assume Gore won't step back in, and it's Clinton and Obama. I don't know who I would prefer. Clinton would be a technocrat's dream. We would be guaranteed good policies, and the lure of the 1990s is certainly appealing, especially after the last six disastrous years. Sound budgets. Free-ish trade. Economic growth that lifts all boats, not just the very rich. A welcoming approach to immigration. A respect for multilateralism. Possible health care reform. And a willingness to stand up to the abortion lobby, and fight to reduce abortion rates.

With Obama we would get.. what exactly? I don't know, but I like it anyway! Because Obama is the first politician since 1968 to capture the spirit of Bobby Kennedy. The soaring rhetoric. The charisma. The basic decency underpinned by strong religious values. The inclination to bring people together. After a long-term debasement of political culture, culminating in Bush, Obama soars above all others. But what would be actually do? He could easily be a failure, just as Bobby Kennedy could have been a failure.

So, who should it be? Solid policies (but boring and risk-averse) or idealism (but untested and risky?) I have no idea!

Murder in India

The Indian government claims that 10 million baby girls have been killed over the past 20 years, either before or immediately after birth, following the parents' preference for males. Some will undoubtedly claim that poverty comes into play, as parents need sons to provide for them in old age. But the statistics also show that killing baby girls is most pronounced among the highly educated, including the upmarket regions of New Delhi. For these people, a child is clearly a commodity to be accepted or thrown away based on personal preferences.

The situation in India (and indeed China) is staggering. By the 2001 census, the sex ratio was 933 girls to 1,000 boys India, and 798 girls to 1,000 boys in Punjab state. But where is the outcry? Who is speaking out for these girls' lives? The silence from the west is deafening. Because there is a dirty little secret: if you believe abortion is a "human right" and therefore something good, then you can have no problem whatsoever with what is taking place in India...

Message from Pope Benedict

Hee hee...

Oscar Romero on Torture

Oscar Romero was the archbishop of San Salvador, assassinated while saying Mass in 1980 by death squads angered by his public voice against poverty, social injustice, political killings, and torture in El Salvador at the time. He was also an incredibly eloquent speaker and writer. Here is something he had to say about torture:

"There is no dichotomy between man and God’s image.
Whoever tortures a human being,
whoever abuses a human being,
whoever outrages a human being,
abuses God’s image."

Are you listening George Bush and Dick Cheney? Are you listening Jimmy Akin and all those Catholics who try to provide some "moral space" to defend Bush's torture policies? And where is the voice of the American church in this time of trial? Its silence is almost shameful.

National Review Pinochet Fetish Continues....

I noted recently the insidious moral relativism of the National Review, whose defense of Pinochet seems to go something like this: sure, he did bad things, but he did wonders for the Chilean economy, and anyway, he's better than Castro. People with consistent views of these things (including those of us influenced by Catholic teaching, to which the National Review frequently pays lip service) will not lament when Castro dies. Just because a few nostalgic lefties still fawn over this fool is no license to defend other forms of evil.

Anyway, the Pinochet fetish at the National Review shows no signs of abating. Most recently, fetishist-in-chief Jonah Goldberg mused that what Iraq needs is a Pinochet. The logic? He's better than Castro. Surprise, surprise. Not that anyone is trying to export Castro from Havana to the desert... And anyway, an Iraqi Pinochet: wasn't that supposed to be Ahmed Chalabi?

The Peace Pope

When Joseph Ratzinger chose the name Benedict XVI last year, he invoked the memory of his predecessor, Benedict XV, who tried in vain to broker peace between the various parties during the first world war. In the current pope's words: "Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples." Looking back, Benedict XV seems a voice of reason in a frenzied world, especially when he opposed the ruinous Versailles terms that fueled the rise of the Nazis.

The pope is following through with his promise, and is proving to be a major voice for peace in the world. In this light, his message for the World Day of Peace (January 1, 2007) is illuminating. In his own unique voice, Benedict ties peace to the dignity of the human person, and the entire depth and breadth of Catholic social teaching (not only the parts that suit a particular ideology, but the whole of it). In particular, he has strong words for those who would denigrate human rights in the context of dealing with terrorism. I wonder who he is talking about?

Let's go through it, step by step. Benedict begins by noting the inherent God-given human dignity that demands respect:

"As one created in the image of God, each individual human being has the dignity of a person; he or she is not just something, but someone, capable of self-knowledge, self-possession, free self-giving and entering into communion with others."

Note immediately that, in my recent posts on torture, the starting point is the same: torture is wrong because it violates this God-given human dignity, and treats a person as a mere object. Or as Benedict says in the current context, the duty to respect the dignity of every human being means that "the person can not be disposed of at will". Moreover, "those with greater political, technical, or economic power may not use that power to violate the rights of others who are less fortunate." This is paramount. Benedict claims that, above all, this calls for respecting life and religious freedom. Only then can there be a true and authentic peace.

He then gives examples of the widespread disrespect for life today, appealing almost to a consistent "seamless garment" approach that transcends political ideology and labels:

"We must denounce its widespread violation in our society: alongside the victims of armed conflicts, terrorism and the different forms of violence, there are the silent deaths caused by hunger, abortion, experimentation on human embryos and euthanasia. How can we fail to see in all this an attack on peace?"

When it comes to religious freedom, he speaks of the "difficulties that both Christians and the followers of other religions frequently encounter in publicly and freely professing their religious convictions." He notes that some states impose a single religion on all, while others do not persecute but instill a "systematic denigration of religious beliefs". It is clear what Benedict is talking about here. Following from his controversial Regensburg lecture, he is again referring to both Islam and secular western democracy. The former must, as a basic principle of natural law, grant religious freedom and reciprocity, while the latter must respect the voice of religion in the public sphere. Repeating an earlier theme, he notes that "war in God's name is never acceptable". Can't get much clearer than that.

Many on the right will be applauding the pope at this point. But what he says following this may make some of them a little uneasy. For he states bluntly that the "many unjust inequalities" in the world are at the "origin of the many tensions that threaten peace". In his words:

"Particularly insidious among these are, on the one hand, inequality in access to essential goods like food, water, shelter, health; on the other hand, there are persistent inequalities between men and women in the exercise of basic human rights."

He draws special attention to the condition of women in society, condemning the tendency in some places to treat women as objects, and "the mindset persisting in some cultures, where women are still firmly subordinated to the arbitrary decisions of men, with grave consequences for their personal dignity and for the exercise of their fundamental freedoms." He also embraces environmentalism, noting that "disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence" and condemning the "destruction of the environment, its improper or selfish use, and the violent hoarding of the earth's resources". A sharp rebuke to many in the western word, particularly in the United States, who scoff at proposals to curb energy consumption. But this is all part of the gospel of peace.

In the crux of his message, Benedict is clearly challenging those who believe war is the answer to terrorism and other threats to peace, and who are swift to downplay economic and environmental concerns. In other words, terrorism cannot be addressed in any meaningful way without looking at the underlying inequities and violations of human dignity (this is in no way to condone or at least turn a blind eye to terrorist acts-- a fault of many on the secular left). It is simply staggering that the coterie of Catholic intellectuals (Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel etc.) that defended Bush's war policies took so blinkered a view of Catholic social teaching. But Benedict presents it in full glory, liberated from the trappings of secular ideology.

The final section deals with human rights, international organizations, and international law. If the right did not like what they've seen so far, they will be appalled by this part! For Benedict notes immediately a tension between absolute human rights and a "relativistic conception of the person". He raises the following question: "Can we wonder that, faced with the “inconvenient” demands posed by one right or another, someone will come along to question it or determine that it should be set aside?" This, of course, raises the specter of the Bush administration's gutting of the Geneva Conventions and legitimizing torture. Benedict is very clear. The United Nations is charged with protecting human rights, and the 1948 Universal Declaration embodies those rights, which are "not simply on the decisions of the assembly that approved them, but on man's very nature and his inalienable dignity as a person created by God." Tell that the the partisans on the American right who detest the UN (the most popular book in Fundie-land, the Left Behind series, sees the Antichrist as the UN Secretary General!).

In possibly the most powerful section of the whole letter, Benedict addresses recent wars and "new forms of violence" including terrorism. In this context, he notes that these new forms of violence:

"demand that the international community reaffirm international humanitarian law, and apply it to all present-day situations of armed conflict, including those not currently provided for by international law. Moreover, the scourge of terrorism demands a profound reflection on the ethical limits restricting the use of modern methods of guaranteeing internal security."

This is pretty clear. Some Catholics and others (nearly all based in the United States, and supporters of Bush's wars) have been attempting to modify traditional just war teaching in the name of "asymmetrical warfare" when armies don't simply face other armies on the battlefield, but must deal with terrorists possibly armed with weapons of mass destruction. Pope Benedict provides an emphatic rejection of this cynical viewpoint. We should be re-affirming, not changing, international humanitarian law in such circumstances. The universal moral law holds. That means no looser standard for war. That means no torture, irrespective of circumstance.

The pope also laments the fact that international humanitarian law has not been respected in recent times, and he draws attention to the Lebanese war this past summer. He states that "the duty to protect and help innocent victims and to avoid involving the civilian population was largely ignored". But again, the war party in America was baying for blood given that the enemy comprised "terrorists". In hindsight, the pope was right, just like Benedict XV was right in his own time: Israel's foolish and immoral attacks have only emboldened the political position of Hezbollah, threatening Lebanese democracy. I noted this at the time. War is rarely the answer, legitimate in only very special circumstances. And when war breaks out, based on jingoism and a desire for vengeance, and devoid of sober analysis, it can so easily lead to terrible consequences. Versailles. Lebanon. Iraq. And here we are. Listen to Benedict this time, please!

Who's the Moral Relativist Now?

The National Review had a symposium on the death of Pinochet. They asked a number of "experts" to assess his legacy. Before we start, let us recall what Pinochet actually did. As noted by the Financial Times (hardly a partisan voice):

"Some 3,000 people had been killed or “disappeared” (a verb that became synonymous with Chile), tens of thousands were subjected to routine torture and still more were forced into exile."

Christopher Hitchens reminds us of "Operation Condor" a alliance of various intelligence agencies across Latin America with the aim of hunting down and killing political opponents all over the world. In one noteworthy case, Pinochet ordered the car bombing assassination of a Chilean dissident (Orlando Letelier) in rush-hour downtown Washington DC in 1976. And in his dotage, he showed no signs of repentance, refusing to provide any information about the "disappeared".

But none of this really matters to the National Review, that bastion of morality! Anthony Daniels (didn't he play C3PO?) admits to "brutality and hardship" but argues that he still brought prosperity, and anyway, "he hardly figured among the 20th century’s most prolific political killers." Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations! Along similar lines, Roger Fontaine argues that, yes, human rights suffered, and even concedes that he was corrupt, but hey, he did good things for the economy. And Mario Loyola thinks that at least he was better than Castro. Ion Mihai Pacepa even asks God to bless him for saving Chile from communism!

Amazing. All kinds of consequentialist "ends justifies the means" reasoning. No wonder the National Review has few (if any) problems with torture. But the idea that they are on the vanguard of supporting "moral values" is a joke. This is about as "moral relativist" as it gets. As the National Review's Jonah Goldberg puts it himself:

"Right now, the Pinochet-hating left is talking about the manifest evil of the man in purely idealistic and universal terms. In other words, because it is always wrong to censor, to oppress, to torture etc. Pinochet must be condemned in absolute and unequivocal terms."

Well, yes, that's exactly what it means, Jonah. Welcome to the world of consistency.

Could Dick Cheney Get Any Worse?

The short answer is yes. Apparently, Cheney is warming to the idea of siding with the Shia and "crushing the Sunnis". When the New Republic hosted a recent debate on solutions to the Iraq debacle, I pointed to Kurth's idea as the most idiotic, the most short-sighted, and the most amoral of the lot. Why is it no surprise that this would tempt Dick Cheney?

Remember, Kurth is proposing foreign policy based on vengeance. And think of the practical implications. Yet again, the United States would bolster the position of Iran, the most dangerous country in the region, after allowing it attain nuclear weapons unopposed. This would also boost the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance that could easily destroy the nascent Lebanese democracy. And let's not even get into the Christmas present of a lifetime that this would present to Al Qaeda, who would once more be seen as a defender of the Sunnis everywhere.

Update: Andrew Sullivan wonders if this is connected to the sudden resignation of Saudi ambassador Turki al-Faisal. It may be.

Bobby...

I saw this movie tonight. And unlike many critics, I liked it a lot. Basically, the movie tracks a bevy of characters in and around the Ambassador hotel on the day Bobby Kennedy won the primary, presaging his assassination that very night. In itself, this worked moderately well. But what gives the movie its power is the scene when Bobby is shot. Throughout the film, we are presented with snippets of the man and his message. As he lies on the floor of the hotel kitchen, surrounded by complete chaos, we hear some of his most soaring rhetoric. And what rhetoric it is. He talks about the futility of hatred and division. Of how violence is never the answer, no matter how tempting. Of how compassion must be our primary concern. And how we are all part of a community, connected to a greater whole. It was beautiful and poignant and uplifting. And then it dawned on me: the movie was presenting snapshots of the interconnected human community as it existed on that day and in that place in 1968, all brought together by the terrible events of that day, and thereby imbuing Bobby's words with a tragic dimension.

An aura of sadness and loss hangs over the movie, as we know the author of these majestic words is dead, and that his noble vision ends with him. I did not live through this era, as I was only born two years after Bobby's assassination. Would Kennedy have been a good president? There is no answer to this question. Perhaps his idealism would have hit cold hard reality, in Vietnam, in the coming global recession, in countless other challenges. But we will never know. All we know is that it all went downhill in America from that June night in 1968, culminating in the presidency George W. Bush, who in many ways is the anti-Kennedy. While Bobby spoke of bringing peace, Bush brought war. While Kennedy talked about compassion from heartfelt belief, Bush talked about compassion to earn votes and then chose instead to reward the wealthy and especially his cronies. While Bobby's rhetoric was noble and inspiring, Bush speaks in monosyllabic sound bites. And while Bobby was guided by his idealism, Bush offers only cynicism and petulence.

But this goes way beyond Bush. No public figure speaks like that anymore, with the possible exception of Barack Obama. Of course, Bobby's belief sprung from his heartfelt Catholic faith. He is a reminder of what Catholic public figures were like before the advent of people like Rick Santorum, Bill Donohue, George Weigel, and Deal Hudson. This was a time when Catholic politicians clung to the entire Catholic social theory, not only the parts favored by the Republican party, or evangelical allies.

So, go and watch this movie. Let Kennedy's words, uttered in 1968, offer meaning in the current climate in 2006. Shed a tear for what was lost. And hope for what may come.

Catholic League Watch 6

The Catholic League claims that its aim is to "safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened." But, in reality, it functions as a rather shrill organ of the Republican right, and little more. This is the sixth post in the series.

Who is Dennis Prager? Yet another Republican shill who claims to favor "Judeo-Christian values". Even though Bush appointed him to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, I'd never heard of him until a few days ago, when be made his debut by announcing that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, must be sworn in on a bible, and that using a Qu'ran would "undermine American civilization" and be like using Hitler's Mein Kampf. What to say about this? For a start, parker is uniformed (an uninformed Bushite? you don't say!). It turns out that the swearing in ceremony involves neither bible nor Qu'ran nor Mein Kampf. Rather, the individuals simply raise their right hands and swear to uphold the constitution. Sometimes members use a bible for a ceremonial swearing in.

What has this to do with our old friend Bill Donohue? Well, as expected, he lost no time coming to the defense of his bigoted friend and displaying a shocking ignorance of the Catholic approach to religious freedom in the process. Here he is:

"The Bible is the constitutive source of the Judeo-Christian ethos upon which the U.S. was founded. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are products of Judeo-Christian civilization. As Prager said, Jews take their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament. It's a matter of respect: it's a symbolic statement that pays due homage to our common heritage. Ergo, the same rule applies to everyone."

The problem with many on the so-called Christian right is that they hold a notion of American exceptionalism, the idea that America (more than any other country) is divinely ordained. This flaw is most often associated with evangelicals, and (not for the first time) Donohue seems to take his cue from here rather than the Catholic Church he purports to defend. For he needs to take a close look at Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom. Right up front, it states:

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

And then there is this:

"The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. "

And this:

"..government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens."

Or this:

"The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government. Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means."

And then there is this:

"Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens."

Get the picture, Donohue?

"A Piece of Furniture"

While Jimmy Akin over at Catholic Answers tries to make Jack Bauer a model of virtue and morality, the horrible implications of the Bush administration's torture policy continue to manifest themselves. Today, both Deborah Sontag of the New York Times and Michael Isakoff of Newsweek address the issue of Jose Padilla, locked up without charge or access to a lawyer for three and a half years. The implication is that the treatment of Padilla-- complete isolation and sensory denial-- has made him mentally ill. His lawyers accuse the government of torture, including "sleep deprivation, extreme cold, injecting noxious fumes into his cell and giving him mind-altering drugs". It is alleged that he now suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, facial tics, and "bodily contortions". Or more technically: "neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation." The one time they let him out for a dental visit, it featured "noise-blocking headphones over his ears and blacked-out goggles over his eyes." As one of his lawyers claimed, he was treated like a piece of furniture.

They've utterly broken the man's spirit. They have violated his God-given human dignity and treated him as a mere object, a means to an end. As noted in the post from last week, this is makes torture intrinsically evil in Catholic moral theology. To be sure, many will point out that (i) what happened to him could be justified in the event of a ticking bomb scenario; (ii) what happened was not really torture, as there was no severe pain. As for (i), the intent and circumstances make no difference when an act is intrinsically evil. As for (ii), only by the twisted logic of the Bush administration (which defines torture as "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function") would that exception be valid. But, as noted earlier, some Catholic apologists are creating space for this Bushite definition, arguing that torture is only torture when it entails "the disproportionate infliction of pain." As for the case of Padilla in particular, note that both Gaudium Et Spes and Veritatis Splendour condemn "physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit." There's really no debate, at least among those not motivated by the need to defend the Bush administration and the amorphous "war on terror."

By the despite the valiant attempts of a small number of Catholic bloggers, this issue is not receiving much traction in the religious sphere. Last month, Peter Steinfels tackled this topic in the New York Times with a column discussing a recent debate in Theology Today. Steinfels addresses the silence head-on:

"It [torture] is such a stain on personal and national character that nothing but appalling photographs could force it to the fore. No stack of equivocating documents can have such force. In a season of shameless attack ads, torture is still too shameful to be debated."

One of the religious contributors to the debate noted that the same was true for the religious sphere: "in my lifetime, I do not remember any major public question being so studiously ignored as this one.'' The appropriate questions are: why? and how will this be judged by future generations?