Just war theory

In our modern age, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are becoming increasingly more common. The nuclear arms race of the earlier 20th century is being echoed today, especially in the growing tensions in North Korea and various Middle Eastern countries. The Catholic Church states that because these new weapons inflict such destruction, their Just War Theory (which guides moral behavior when entering and participating in war) can no longer apply to modern warfare. In this case, the church advocates nonviolent resistance as an alternative to war. I believe that in some situations nonviolent resistance is an option. One can see that famous nonviolent activists such as Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi made much progress in their causes-- as ultimately were victorious. It is my belief that we should remain nonviolent if at all possible. There are many ways one can nonviolently protest-- boycotts, sit-ins, public speeches and presentations, petitioning those who represent us in the government, raising awareness through public appearances and pamphlets, etc. These are often just as or more effective than violent methods of resistance. Your opponent cannot hold any acts of violence over you to vilify you because you have a clean slate. However, I think that in some situations with very aggressive opponents this could be unrealistic. If we are threatened by aggressive opponents who have weapons of mass destruction, it is difficult to not engage in a nuclear arms race in order to protect ourselves. There is a very fine line to walk in this issue. Whether war happens or not, I think that everything happens for a reason. God would not let mass destruction and pain happen if it was not according to his plan. Even awful things such as war have a purpose-- and they may teach us a powerful lesson for the future that will end the suffering.

Silence begets violence?

It is easy to sweep things under the rug. When something is uncomfortable, our natural reaction is usually to try and avoid the situation. It is not easy to talk about things that make us uncomfortable, but that is what we must do. The recent tragedy in Connecticut will act as a gateway, opening the floor for communication. Lawmakers, mental health professionals, and average citizens need to collaborate in order to create policies that will prevent this from happening again. Unfortunately, in the past few years there have been many terrible incidences of violence. Between the school shooting in Connecticut, the movie theater shooting in Aurora, CO, the mall shooting in Oregon, and gun scares at many schools, violence has been more visible than ever. Is it due to the violent video games played by our children? The violence so common to TV shows? A dysfunctional household? Mental illness? It is hard to deduce a single answer. But I think the reason that the Sandy Hook shooting has really caused outrage is because the victims were children. In addition, the sheer number of victims is astounding-- second only to that of the Virginia Tech shooting. It could also be a wake-up call to those of us who live on the east coast-- that it could, in fact, happen to us. What we need to do is take action. President Obama himself said that this was not the first time he has had to make an address about gun violence in his presidency. As a nation we have a responsibility to make sure this violence does not continue to escalate. Catholic Social Teaching calls for us to put our beliefs to action. We can pray for those who were affected by the tragedy, and they do need our prayers. But we can also take action, just as CST calls us to do-- being active members of our society and affecting change through our compassion in order to carry out God's will.

Factory Fire in Bangladesh

The recent factory fire in Bangladesh has provoked a lot of questions. Who is responsible for the horror? The corporation for not installing proper safety measures? The government for not enforcing proper examinations of safety? Consumers for still supporting these companies and allowing them to continue? There is an argument that the factory, however horrific, provided the workers with wages, and in a country with few opportunities a small wage is better than no wage. This may be true to some extent, but should we be content with this fact? I believe that all people should be treated fairly no matter what the circumstances, and these workers are no exceptions. Although it seems unthinkable in America's capitalist society, maybe the corporations should shave off a bit of their extraordinary profits and share some with the workers. I think we are all a bit to blame in this tragedy. The corporations should not be allowing these awful working conditions. The government should be making sure that proper safety checks are being enforced, not just a quick once-over that may have included bribery. In addition, consumers have a right and responsibility to choose to support or not support these companies based on their treatment of workers. This information should be readily available to consumers so that they can be educated and make a decision with an informed conscience (in a similar way that we are compelled to make an informed decision when participating in politics in our own communities).

Saint Dorothy Day?

The essential components for being considered for sainthood is an investigation into the life of the person and his or her works by the Vatican, and the accumulation of two miracles. Miracles usually involve the inexplicable medical cure/healing of a person after use of a relic. A candidate must have 1 miracle attributed to him or her to be named "Blessed", and 2 miracles qualifies them for canonization. I was a little surprised at first that the Archbishop so openly supported Dorothy Day's canonization since he is considered a particularly "conservative" Catholic, and Dorothy Day was such a thorn in the conservative Church's side for being so outspoken. However, I was not surprised once I thought that he probably put aside the "politics" aspect and just looked at Dorothy as a human being. She made mistakes, but those are greatly outweighed by her achievements and ardent service to the poor. So while at first I was surprised, I later thought that it made sense the Archbishop would support her canonization cause. I think it's great that Dorothy Day is being considered for a saint. I think saints should be determined by a well-rounded group of people from many backgrounds and also lay people. The saint shouldn't have to be "perfect"-- like the saints that often come to mind-- but a real person who made a great commitment to God. It's ok that that person may have made mistakes-- we all do. We are human, after all. I think that having a saint who did make some mistakes is a good thing because that means we can relate to them. It's a reminder that God can work through anyone and that he loves everyone-- even if you did make some mistakes in life. Being a saint isn't about being perfect. It isn't about being a completely holy, untouchable person. Many saints had sketchy pasts before they had a miraculous life turn around. What it means to be a saint (at least to me) is to recognize people for their devotion to a cause and to God's mission.

Circles of Protection

This July, a group of religious leaders, who called themselves the Circles of Protection, posed questions to the 2012 presidential candidates: What will you do to help the poor? Both of the candidates made video responses to the group, and having watched them I will consider the strong points, weaknesses, and relativity to the Catholic Church's teaching for each of the candidates. First, Governor Romney talks of bringing new jobs. He says that by stimulating jobs, the economy will improve, thus improving the poverty situation for many Americans. Romney highlights his 5-point economic plan that he believes will help to create up to 12 million jobs by the end of the year. Romney also states that he will stand with "faith-based organizations" and seek their counsel to help the poor. This statement is in line with the Church's teaching that one's faith must inform their political choices and that Catholics have an obligation to reach out to the underprivileged (even though Romney never formally states his own faith in the video). Some of the positives in the video included Romney's participation with faith-based organizations that help the poor and his dedication to improving the situation of those that live within our country. One of the negatives I found with Romney's video was that he neglected to address issues other than America's economy and hungry. While these are obviously very important issues, it seemed that there was a lack of focus also on foreign policy. Second, President Obama directly stated his own faith position and talked openly about the Bible and its role in shaping our lives. This is in line with the Church's teachings that as Catholics our faith should inform us in all aspects of our life and help us to become a better person, just as Obama believes he has "become a better father and husband." Obama says that he supports the basic dignities of workers, including good jobs, fair wages, healthcare, and retirement. He states his support for the equality of workers and rights to all no matter if they are rich or poor. His support of fair wages, private property (home buying), and healthcare are all in line with the Church's teachings. His support of education is especially in touch with the concept of Catholic Social Teaching, which often educates people in impoverished environments so they can learn about their own dignity and rights. He states that while we have a right to work hard for what we earn and keep that, we also have a responsibility to help others. Obama also brings morals into the issue, just as the Church advises us to do-- to not only think of political issues in a strictly analytical light, but also with compassion. He says that we are "all in this together as one people," which I believe is very much in line with the Church's support of community and dignity of all humans and with Jesus's teachings on loving your neighbor. One of the negatives I found with Obama's stance was that while he seemed genuinely concerned for the issues at hand, he did not directly address his plan to fix them. His direct address of Christian faith could also possibly be seen as a negative, since he did not address those of different faiths. He, too, did not seem to put a focus on foreign policy so much as domestic poverty. I personally found Romney to be more direct and solution oriented than Obama, who seemed more idealistic (however, the Church does talk about how one should strive for ideals). All in all, both candidates had pros and cons. Each has some policies in line with the Church's teachings and some that are not so aligned. In the end, it falls on the shoulders of each individual to inform their own conscience and make a decision based on their own set of morals.

Beyond the Swoosh

I think that if a cause is really important to you, than power to you if you want to boycott a company. However, if you're going to boycott a company because they don't provide labor rights, then you should boycott all such companies because otherwise there will be good intentions but not integrity in your act. However, boycotting a company isn't always the most effective thing to do. In mass quantities, boycotts can be very powerful-- the whole point of the company is to make money. But if it's only in small pockets of protesters, then it may not have the dramatic desired effect on the company. For example, many people chose to boycott Oreos after their public support for same-sex marriage. However, these people are probably supporting a large quantity companies who also support same-sex marriage-- including Google, Apple, Boeing, various snack food companies, and so on. Should these people who boycott Oreo also boycott every company that is adverse to what they believe in? Is it even possible? And does our faith call us to do so? It's a tough situation. As an avid supporter of marriage equality and LGBT rights, I decided to boycott Chick-Fil-A after I learned that the head of the company donated money to organizations that work towards the death penalty for homosexuality in Africa. After learning this, I clearly had to make a choice about whether I was okay with my money going toward this cause. I made the choice to not go there, and I haven't since this summer. However, this choice is my own, and other consumers have just as much a right to be informed and go or not go there as I do. I don't think my refrain from buying chicken nuggets once a month will really affect a lot of social change, but I continue my boycott for 2 reasons: (1) I might eventually be one in a large group that could affect change,and (2) it just makes me feel better morally to not go there. I think that everyone hears the call of the higher power in their life differently. If you feel that God is calling you or your religion is compelling you to boycott a company in order to affect social change, then that is your decision to do so. As a consumer, you have a right to know where your money goes-- or doesn't go-- and decide your patronage accordingly. However, instead of putting our energy into boycotting many companies, maybe we should put that energy into a campaign for justice in our society so that we don't have to boycott companies in the first place.

Church and Scripture

Many of the examples of the Church's teachings in pages 10-30 of our book are congruous with what I have learned growing up Catholic. Obviously throughout my Catholic childhood, I heard the classic stories of the Bible: Cain and Abel, the Fall, original sin, and the Paschal Mystery. However, my experience with the Church's teachings on social justice has been limited. Unfortunately in my experience the Church does not seem to "apply" its teachings enough to a modern context. Social justice is considered "the best kept secret" of the Church for good reason. The Church doesn't want to have to balance on the precarious slope of advocating for social change and becoming entangled in politics, which can end up turning into telling its members what to think on political matters. However, social justice is a necessary part of Christian tradition. Even though social justice has not been emphasized as important in my experience, I think it can be a especially bridging experience for a faith community.Working together for a good cause can bring people very closely together, as we can see in our own school community through service clubs and trips that facilitate friendships one might not have had before. You may not agree with your neighbors about everything, but one thing that many people can agree on is the care which we should give to the marginalized and that they deserve justice, charity, and basic human rights just as much as we do.