DON'T BE STINGY WITH HOPE

Why are we so chary with hope, so stingy with it?  It's as if hope is a commodity that Americans hold in their hands and dole out in dribbles to other people who--for the same reasons we like living here--want to come and put down roots in our country.

We are a country of immigrants.  We are founded on them.  The roads we drive on, the rivers we traverse, the buildings we worship in, the places where we eat--so much has been built with the help of the Irish, the Chinese, people from Africa (acknowledging that slavery is not the same as immigration), from the Caribbean, Puerto Rico, Asia, and so much more.

I am minded of this when I read recently in the Lectionary of the great saga from Exodus where Moses is commanded by God ("Who me? I stutter, I am too weak, I have a wedding to attend, my gimpy hip won't take me that far...") to lead his people out of Egypt, the place of slavery.

And the Israelites hope.  It is their birthright; it is written into their DNA; it is in all of their stories that God is THEIR God, the ONE who will attend to their sorrows and save them.

The Pharaoh made a strategic error, a huge, strategic error.  He was complaining of how fertile the Hebrews were, how they were multiplying like insects, how--if the Egyptians were not careful--the Hebrews might take over.  He was in this moment forgetting that it was the Hebrew people who worked the fields, mixed the straw and mud for bricks, built his buildings, and so much more.  He forgot their intrinsic dignity and worth before God. He was governed by fear and not by hope, a common failing of rulers.

That brings me to our present day and to our xenophobic fear and mistrust of immigrants, particularly those coming up from countries south of us, especially Mexico.  This blog is not the place to discuss how we could take the money we are investing in that evil wall and invest it instead in industries and agriculture in Mexico to make life better for people there, thus reducing the flow over the border.  That would be too reasonable, too humane.  Instead, we take our fear of "the other," the fear that Pharaoh was ruled by, that there won't be enough to go around; that the immigrants will "take over," take up too many resources, be a weight on the state--you name it.  Fear is big enough to contain many things.

Those who want a huge wall and more border guards (Really? Have they studied history as in, um, Hadrian's Wall?  Or the Chinese Great Wall?) are forgetting some crucial facts:  Immigrants contribute to the prosperity of our country.  They are not a drain on our resources, as many fear.  The N.Y. Times recently ran an article containing clear data showing that illegal immigrants have contributed mightily in taxes which repair our roads, contribute to Medicare, and also, unfortunately, fund our wasteful wars.  But that's another story.

This story is about allowing hope to others and seeing that we live in a world of abundance, not scarcity.  Probably the only thing I totally supported in former President George W. Bush's government was his plan to allow illegal immigrants to become legal.  He got it.  Bless his soul.

We might find--if we allowed others to hope for a better life, for good schools for their children, for decent health care--that we might have another Moses in our midst, or perhaps an inheritor of Dr. Martin Luther King's prophetic witness, or another Dorothy Day.  We cannot imagine the riches which immigrants might bring to this country.  We just cannot.

I applaud the support that the Catholic Church is offering to immigration reform, to finding a way to "offer a path to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants in our society. This is the kind of church leadership which makes my heart lift up.

 My hope for this year and the next is that we Americans will open our hands to those wanting to come to our country; that we will allow hope to fly free like a beautiful bird circling over the heads of people heading North, heading towards hope.Face Book

JUST WAR THEORY

I have been swimming in the murky waters of the Just War theory as our nation appears balanced on the edge of a spear, about to lance itself into conflict with the Middle East.  Again.  With no hope of success.  Again.  With no support in the international community, save France, and divisive voices at home.

There is something to be said for taking a look at Just War theory and what it might--and might not--have to say to us as we reflect upon what it will mean for us, for Syria, and for the entire Middle East if we become involved militarily in this bloody, sectarian struggle.  So I go to Catholic theology to see what it has to say about just and unjust wars.  (Note:  This discussion does not address whether any war can ever be just; it simply looks at what moral principles can be thoughtfully applied to armed conflict and its justification.)

Ok, tighten your seat belts, make a cup of strong coffee, sit up straight in your chair, and let's begin. The Just War theory (also known as jus ad bellum, right to go to war) has a long history, beginning with Cicero who believed there were right causes for war.  St. Augustine weighed in heavily on this theory, developing central reasons, and these were later refurbished by St. Thomas Aquinas. (Apparently, some 12th-century Arabic thinkers also discussed this.)

There are several crucial components to the Just War theory, which after all is about looking at possible conflicts and trying to decide not only where justice lies, but how justice might be achieved.  My sources for this essay include:  The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism; Wikepedia, the Just War theory; the Mt. Holyoke site on Just War; the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2307-2309; George Lopez, Professor of Peace and Justice at Notre Dame from the August 30th Religion & Ethics Weekly Broadcast; and the U.S .Catholic bishop's pastoral letter, "The Challenge of Peace," the source of quotes used in this essay.)

The first step includes Just Cause:  This means that nations must not go to war for frivolous reasons such as revenge, punishment, or even simply national interest.  The war must confront a "real and certain danger," such as self-defense.

The second step is Competent Authority:  This tells us that individuals or groups like the Tea Party cannot wage war on their own; it must come from a government committed to the "public order."

The third criterion is Comparative Justice:  This is an interesting one as it tells us to look at the other side in the conflict, to weigh the reasons involved in force being used by the "enemy."  It also says we should use "limited means" to achieve our goals.

The fourth criterion is Right Intention:  This ties in with "Just Cause" in looking at the motivations for going to war, that war not be based on revenge or hatred of the enemy.

The fifth step is Last Resort:  This states that every other peaceable means has been tried to settle the conflict before going to war.

The sixth criterion is Possibility of Success:  Obviously, this means that officials waging war must have a reasonable chance of succeeding at their goals (what values are at stake) in the conflict.  And the stated goal should always be the re-establishment of peace and justice.

The seventh and last step is Proportionality:  This states that the evils and harm brought about by war be "proportionate to the good expected by using arms."  In other words, the final good must exceed the present destruction.  People must be better off after the conflict than they were before.

Then (take a deep breath and gulp your coffee, pleas), there is what is called jus in bello, which defines the right way to wage war.  This includes:  That war not kill innocent civilians; and that weapons of mass destruction not be used.

So.  There we are.  Need a nap? More coffee?  Single-malt Scotch?  If you apply these conditions to the prospect of intervening in Syria's Civil War, what do you come out with?