Justice and Freedom for the Human Embryo

Editor's NOTE:

In view of the National Health Care debate which is currently raging, this re-worked essay which I wrote several years ago and which was used to help lobby Congress against embryonic stem cell research and human cloning for biomedical research is included in order to counter assertions that some human beings are non-persons and unworthy of life.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert


The Philosophy of the Human Person, the Body/Soul Issue and Ethics

(Personhood cannot be acquired or lost)

By: John P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS

In the past several years, a growing moral and ethical dilemma has presented itself. Largely because of an almost logrhythmic increase in bio-technologic expertise, certain options are now available which would have been unthinkable just a short several decades ago. Two of these as mentioned above are; Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell research (ESCR) and Human Research Cloning (CBR). They are very closely allied in that each involves the destruction of human embryos (DER) at an early stage in human development. The question which has yet to be adequately addressed is; are human embryos deserving of the full respect and protection afforded to any other member of the human species? The 3 positions taken in this review are as follows:

1. The human embryo is a human being, even at the one-celled stage that is; a genetically complete albeit nascent or undeveloped human organism with a complete human genome. This is true beyond all reasonable doubt and has been demonstrated empirically by multiple scientific investigators.[1]

2. Contemporary attempts to justify the intentional destruction of human embryos by maintaining that embryos are human beings but not human persons (and thus not deserving of full moral status and protection) are philosophically untenable and must be repudiated. On the basis of biology, metaphysics and ethics, the human embryo should be accorded full moral status including inviolability, a reality which (justice demands) should be codified in law. This is true irrespective of age, acquired characteristics or the way in which the embryo is regarded by others. It is true because of the inherent nature, being and essence that the embryo has, not because of any externally applied or acquired characteristic or ability.

3. Logic, intellectual honesty, consistency in the history of ethics, as well as justice demand that we treat like things similarly. If the assertions made here are correct, then destructive embryo research (DER) is immoral and its practice should be sanctioned by law. Only then will justice be achieved. This will insure that the human embryo is given the freedom to thrive that it rightly deserves. The right to life is the first of all rights and without it, no other rights follow. Since justice is; giving to another what they are due, it is clear that the human embryo possesses the right to life and the freedom to thrive that any other member of the human species has. This is a basic requirement of justice and is non-negotiable.[2] As such, the Catholic Church of record and most of Christianity rightly teaches that the right to life is fundamental and irrevocable. It is also a touchstone principle which is fundamental to the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which the American experiment was based.

Few topics are as timely and prescient today as that of human personhood (personhood theory) and with it, the continued philosophical debate over the “body/soul” issue. This is predominately displayed in the ongoing public discourse over abortion, destructive embryo research (DER) and euthanasia, in which some human beings are characterized as “non-persons”, non-humans or non-beings in order to justify their manipulation or death. Tragically, many secular bioethicists now advocate for a “quality of life” ethic which utilizes a utilitarian calculus in order to justify the taking of innocent human life.[3] It represents a radical departure from the traditional “sanctity of life” ethic[4] (also referred to as the equality of human life ethic).[5] It has resulted in a growing “culture of death."

One technique presently popular among bioethicists who embrace the “quality of life” (read culture of death) ethic, is to declare some human beings “non-persons” on the basis of their inability to measure up to certain arbitrarily selected characteristics which are alleged to be a requirement for human personhood (from the moral perspective). In their view, a human being does not possess personhood in virtue of the kind of entity or being they are, but on the basis of various “acquired” characteristics which they do or do not actually have and can demonstrate. This view has been popularized by many contemporary secular bioethicists including Fletcher, Tooley, Singer, Beauchamp, Harris and others.[6] Thus, certain heretofore obvious examples of human persons such as newborn babies and severely handicapped and cognitively disabled and or unconscious persons are labeled “non-persons” under this rubric, while some animals can even be considered persons![7] Such a view is outrageous on its face and incompatible with the sanctity of life (equality of life) ethic which has formed the bedrock of the Judeo-Christian ethic for over 3000 years.

Needless to say, this new “quality of life” (culture of death) ethic particularly among secular academic elites, the media and much of the political establishment is also totally incompatible with orthodox Catholicism, a point well made by the directive to politicians and others in public life published by the Vatican.[8] Despite the fact that the “culture of death” ethic is being embraced [9] by the courts in both North America and much of Europe[10], it is fundamentally flawed and based upon an incorrect and incomplete understanding of the human person grounded largely in modern and post-modern philosophical assumptions, and the embracing of philosophical and scientific naturalism (materialism) by the elites who are presently “in control” of the scientific establishment and much of the public discourse. This can be seen in the deliberations of the Presidents Council on Bioethics which has to date been unable and or unwilling as a commission to declare that human personhood is intrinsic to all human beings regardless of age or stage of development.[11] Specifically, a new term (based on subject/object or person/body Dualism) has been “invented” (intermediate or special status) by which embryos are declared to be more than simply human tissue but not human beings in the usual sense of that term and thus not human persons either until some arbitrary point has been reached in development.[12] While this enables them to be sacrificed (read killed) for their parts (embryonic stem cells), it is entirely ad hoc and philosophically untenable when subjected to rigorous analysis.

Multiple and varied philosophical interpretations exist regarding the nature of the human person including whether the human being is entirely a material entity or a material/immaterial composite.[13] This issue lies at the heart of the dilemma with respect to how the human embryo should be regarded. Professor Benedict Ashley recommends the Aristotelian model of the human person in his book[14] and in his lecture series which is quite similar to the much more extensive and thought provoking outline provided by Professor William Wallace, also based on Aristotelian and Thomistic ideas but updated in light of modern biological science.[15] On the basis of all the available data, this ethicist embraces the ideas so persuasively argued for by Professor Wallace as graphically depicted in his Powers Model of Human Nature above referenced on page 159 of his book. In brief it holds that human beings are rational animals that is, extremely complex and integrated body/soul composites or unions made up of protomatter (prime matter) and a unique immaterial “natural form” (the human soul).[16] Under this rubric, the soul is the principle of substantial unity also referred to as the organizing principle. The human soul (which possesses a special form) is unique to human beings among all other living beings. This paradigm is clearly most consistent with all the relevant data from general (nature subjected to empirical observation) and special revelation.

Many contemporary secular bioethicists either deny immaterial reality or contend that since it cannot be measured by empirical (scientific) methods, it can not be considered, (i.e., it does not exist), in effect subscribing to philosophical (metaphysical) naturalism (materialism). This view was held by the ancient Greeks including Democritus and Epicurus. Another philosophical error is to imagine that the soul is infused at some later date well after conception (fertilization). Under this rubric, the soul is reduced to a non-critical “religious” entity which is not required (for biological life to exist) and is not present from the one-celled zygote stage i.e. from conception, thus providing no role as the immaterial agent of substantial unity (organizing principle). This “Delayed Hominization theory/position” is reminiscent of certain Neo-Platonic assumptions in which the soul is “imprisoned” in the material body and cannot possibly be true (as was recognized by Aristotle and Aquinas not to mention all the data which now exists from the life sciences including the testimony of persons who have experienced “near death” experiences).[17] Tragically, not an insignificant number of Catholic moral theologians/secular bioethicists have embraced this view despite it being incompatible with Catholic moral teaching and careful philosophical analysis.[18]

To recapitulate then, the human person, according to Aristotle and Aquinas is a combination of matter and form like all other inorganic and organic beings (entities), where the human soul is the immaterial (spiritual) form of the person. This is the classic substance view of human personhood which best fits with all the available data in light of contemporary science and classical philosophical anthropology. Practically speaking this is denied only by those who subscribe to modern Epicurean materialism (Darwinism).

Unlike all other material entities or beings, the human person is capable of both intellection (including the formation of abstract concepts including universals), and will (which includes the “passions”, emotions and appetitive characteristics). This substance view also holds that there is an essential interdependence and unity between body and soul in each human person, a point well made by Professor William E. May in his book referred to above. He also cites the similar opinion of John Paul II, Jacques Maritain by reference, and the Working Group of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (in discussing the human person from the perspective of the issue of brain death and organ donation).[19] May and others refer to this unity as the principle of substantial unity of the body and indicates that it is the same as the principle of personhood.[20]

In this construct, the brain is the instrument of our intelligence, not its organ that is, the brain is instrumentally utilized by the soul to effect action in the material realm, but the brain is not synonymous with the soul.[21] Intellectual insight and reasoning are spiritual functions which, while requiring processing of sense data, are not merely material brain operations. Thus, the brain is used as a material instrument by which the spiritual soul engages in both intellection and will. Both Ashley and Wallace among many others including Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas successfully establish in this authors view, that it is impossible to account for some of the observable characteristics of human beings without invoking the spiritual (immaterial) dimension.[22] Rabid materialists (scientific naturalists) vehemently disagree, for example Professor Gazzaniga, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.[23] However, despite recent neurological research into the subcellular (molecular) level of the thought process including controlled studies utilizing PET scans and other physiologic modalities, the non-material nature of both intellection and will remains unaddressed in solely the natural realm and the scientific process which studies it.[24] This is another way of saying that modern biological science with its materialistic bias, is fundamentally unable to account for man’s ability to be self aware, self conscious, or as Professor Ashley argues; the ability to be “all at one point” not spread out or in parts like a material object, the “I know that I know that I know”.[25]

In addition to self awareness this higher level of human function is most obviously seen in the ability that human beings have for abstract thought and spoken and written language. Higher mathematics and the extreme degrees of abstraction called for in doing metaphysics would be additional examples which defy reduction to electrochemical reactions among the complex networks of integrated circuitry which are present in the human brain. Therefore, any construct with respect to the human person which denies the immaterial dimension or reality of human beings, is fatally flawed as is any ethical system or paradigm which builds upon it, and any biological science involving human behavior for that matter.[26]

Unfortunately, much of modern physical and biological science is inculcated with both philosophical and scientific naturalism (materialism) in which it is argued that only brute matter exists.[27] That is to say and it is asserted that there is no non-material reality, including the soul or the spiritual realm. This phenomenon flows out of British Empiricism and Continental European Idealism both of which have their roots in Cartesian subject/object dualism including Descartes “man as machine” formulation and the misinterpreted and misunderstood mechanistic cosmology of Newton in the wake of Galileo. In addition it is also now a consequence of Darwinism and post-enlightenment rationalism and atheism. Ironically this has produced a contemporary view of science which is closer to the ancient Greek mechanistic view that Democritus and Epicurus had of science than is often appreciated. It has meant that modern science has often been placed in open opposition to belief in God as the first cause of material reality, leaving the material (natural) realm that science investigates without an adequate foundation or appropriate first cause.[28] Pope John Paul II has written well that such a view, which he calls rigid “scientism”, is a tragic misinterpretation of the scientific data and in fact the promulgation of materialistic philosophy rather than an accurate description of scientific reality. Nevertheless, a great deal of public policy and discourse in the West is founded upon these false materialistic assumptions about reality and the human person as well. Thus the contemporary debate about human personhood really reduces to a profound disagreement about human anthropology and the nature of reality or in other words, metaphysics rather than science or ethics per se.[29]

A detailed discussion of the metaphysical flaws involved in philosophical naturalism or rigid scientism is beyond the scope of this paper, but careful analysis demonstrates that it is incompatible with all the data available from Divine Revelation and the study of nature subjected to the light of human reason. However, one can appreciate that it might seem reasonable to embrace a “quality of life” (culture of death) ethic if one assumes that human beings are only material entities, lacking an immaterial soul as many secular bioethicists do. Under such a construct, it is much easier to declare that some people are “persons” and others are not, in an entirely arbitrary and ad-hoc way. Since there is no non-material or spiritual aspect (that is understood to be common to all human persons) which grounds their dignity, personhood can be defined by those in power to do so, on any basis they choose as is presently being done with great vigor in the West. In that regard, the “Materialists” and “Sophists” of ancient Greece have reappeared on the contemporary scene in the form of secular utilitarian bioethicists who employ sophistry in order to mold public opinion. They have succeeded in making moral Darwinism (Culture of Death) the accepted moral construct in the West.[30]

A second error that underlies the “quality of life” ethic is the assumption of moral relativism. This view, despite the fact that it is self-contradictory, holds that there are no moral absolutes. It is very conveniently combined with Utilitarianism in which the non-moral benefit (which reduces to pleasure, preference or desire) of the community is considered the supreme “good” by which moral decisions are made. Thus, if it is “potentially” beneficial for thousands of patients that hundreds of thousands of embryos are sacrificed (read killed) for their stem cells, the utilitarian bioethical calculus is applied and the embryos are killed in the name of the greater good of society. This works particularly well if embryos are held either to be non-human (a scientific error),[31] or non-persons (a philosophical error).[32] There are many excellent works which demonstrate that moral relativism is an incoherent philosophical system,[33] yet it is held by many of the elites who are presently in control of academia, the media and much of the public policy establishment. Similarly, there are excellent works which either directly or indirectly demonstrate that utilitarianism is insufficiently powerful as a tool for moral decision making, given the demonstrable complexities of the human person.[34] Despite these realities, the “culture of death” ethic continues to advance in the realm of public policy, the courts, and the popular imagination.

It is now common to speak of “death with dignity” and the “right to die” when the “quality” of one’s life is no longer ideal or “tolerable”.[35] We now read about major University Medical Centers in which organs are “harvested” from people who are not yet dead, but in whom their quality of life was deemed inadequate (by ethics committees with a vested interest in obtaining organs for transplantation).[36] For that matter, the entire concept of “brain death” (philosophically questionable in itself) which has made this possible is beyond the scope of this paper. In any case, these developments were impossible a few short decades ago when the “sanctity of life” ethic reigned as part of the common morality. While this very rapid paradigm shift from the equality or sanctity of life ethic to a quality of life ethic is multifactorial, it is predicated in large part on a repudiation of the Aristotelian and Thomistic view of the human person which includes the notion that human beings are body/soul or material/immaterial (spiritual) composites which exist in unity or integration during biological life. As alluded to earlier, this is in large part related to the fact that much of modern science is predicated (philosophically and foundationally) upon Cartesian subject/object or person/body dualism and the metaphysical acceptance of Materialism.

In light of the foregoing, we can see how it is possible to dismiss the lives of some human beings by declaring them non-persons. Fr. Michael Schooyans has written:

“Men cast doubt on the human character of certain beings whenever they sought arguments to exploit or exterminate their fellow human beings. In antiquity slaves were considered as things and barbarians as second class men. In the sixteenth century, some conquerors considered the Indians as “beasts in human appearance.” The Nazis looked upon some men as “non-men”, as Unmenschen. To these arbitrary classifications dictated by the masters corresponded real discrimination and this, in turn, “legitimized” exploitation or extermination.[37]

This phenomenon is much easier to accomplish when philosophical naturalism or materialism (and with it the denial of the soul) and moral relativism are widely embraced as they are today. Materialism removes the soul (spiritual) from consideration, and moral relativism dispenses with any need to consider the individual objective moral act, the intent or the circumstances which classically have defined moral deliberations, at least in the Catholic Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition. Instead, the nonmoral value or practical consequences or benefit(s) is considered in utilitarian (consequentialist or proportionalist) terms only. Thus the entire notion of a just consideration of means vs: ends are eliminated in the name of utility (pleasure) or pragmatism and often unbridled notions of rigid autonomy, (particularly among the heavily financed biomedical research establishment who advocate for little or no restrictions).[38] Taking the lives of some innocent human beings is virtually inconceivable when the Aristotelian/Thomistic view of the human person is embraced as it is articulated by professors Ashley and Wallace. Under such a rubric, all human beings are persons of equal worth and dignity in virtue of the nature and kind of being they are, not because of some ad hoc criteria they meet or some acquired characteristics or abilities they are presently capable of demonstrating. The Catholic convert and English writer Malcolm Muggeridge succinctly summarized the issue as follows: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other."

In conclusion, it is vital to achieve an accurate and complete understanding of the human person, vis a vis the totality of their human being if the human embryo is to be treated justly. The only philosophy of the human person which adequately does so is the one articulated by Aristotle, Aquinas, John Paul II, May, Ashley, Wallace and others in which human beings are correctly identified as body/soul composite persons in substantial unity with the ability of intellection and will, each one of which enjoy an equal worth and human dignity. This worth and dignity exist not because of acquiring or losing some characteristic(s) or abilities, but as part of the substantial unity (unifying principle) which exists in reality, in virtue of the kind of being they are; a being in which matter is united to a very unique and special type of form which we call the human soul. In Christian terms this dignity is afforded on the basis of being created in the image (imago Dei) of an omnibenevolent triune God who creates that soul for its own sake out of Love. If this is not understood and applied, a panoply of disastrous consequences arise, exemplified by the tragedies associated with abortion, in-vitro fertilization (with embryo manipulation/destruction) and destructive embryo research to name only a few. All three demonstrate that a false/limited view of the human person (and the loss of the sanctity of human life ethic that is coincident with it), have brought great tragedy to contemporary Western culture as it has taken freedom and with it justice from the human embryo, and by extension, and as members of the human family, all human beings. Let us work, hope and pray that this “culture of death” ethic can be quickly and effectively reversed.

End Notes:

[1] Bruce Carlson. Human Embryology, (Livingston, New York: Churchill, 1994); C. Ward Kischer, PhD. “When Does Human Life Begin? The Final Answer,” The Linacre Quarterly 70, no. 4 (2003), pp 327-331, “Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of human embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being”; Scott Gilbert. Developmental Biology, 5th edition, (Sunderland Mass.: Sinnauer Associates, 1997; Msgr. Jeremiah J. McCarthy PhD. “Invoking Embryonic Development and the Notion of “Personhood” to Justify Early Abortion: A curious Argument,” The Linacre Quarterly 70, no. 4 (2003), p.348.

[2] Specifically a requirement of both commutative and legal justice.

[3] McCarthy. p. 347.

[4] John Paul II. 1995. Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, in which the traditional “Inviolability of human life” ethical teaching was again powerfully affirmed.

[5] Wesley J Smith. Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder. (Dallas: Spence Publishing Co. 2003), p. XXVII.

[6] Michael Tooley. Abortion and Infanticide. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 61-76; Peter Singer. Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), pp 202-206; Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Fifth Edition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Tom L. Beauchamp, “The Failure of Theories of Personhood,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9, no. 4 (1999), p. 320; John Harris, “The Concept of the Person and the Value of Life,” Kennedy, Institute of Ethics Journal 9, no. 4 (1999), p. 297; Joseph Fletcher, “Indicators of Personhood,” Hastings Center Report 2 (November 1972) 1-4.

[7] R. G. Frey, “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism,” Between the Species 4 (1988), pp. 196-197; Peter Singer. Animal Liberation. (New York: Avon Books, 1990), pp. 6, 18, 22.

[8] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Rome, Nov. 24, 2002, paragraphs 3 & 4.

[9] Paul Nowak, “New Jersey First to Publicly Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research”
LifeNews.com (June 29, 2004) http://www.lifenews.com/bio364.html “New Jersey has become the first state to use taxpayer dollars to fund human cloning for research purposes. Last week, Governor Jim McGreevey added $3 million to the state budget to fund embryonic stem cell research, only a day before the budget was supposed to be put to a vote.

[10] Kischer. pp. 331-333.

[11] The President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity.
(New York: Public Affairs, 2002).

[12] Ibid.

[13] James J. Mc Cartney. Unborn Persons: Pope John Paul II and the Abortion Debate. (New York: Peter Lang, 1987).

[14] Benedict M. Ashley and Kevin D. O’Rourke. Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis. (Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997), pp. 321, p. 357.

[15] William A. Wallace. The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis. (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), pp. 157-189, particularly p. 159; William A. Wallace, O P. The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians (New York: Alba House, 1977), pp. 58-64, 80-83, & 145; Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae Ia-IIae, q. 94, a.3: “Since the rational soul is man’s proper form, he has a natural tendency (naturalis inclination) to act according to reason that is to say according to virtue”.

[16] Wallace. The Modeling of Nature. pp. 158 & 159.

[17] Patrick Lee. Abortion &Unborn Human Life. (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997); Stephen Schwarz. The Moral Question of Abortion. (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990).

[18] Joseph Donceel, “A Liberal Catholic’s View,” in Abortion and Catholicism: The American Debate, pp. 48-53; Joseph Donceel, S.J. “Immediate Animation and Delayed Hominization,” Theological studies 31 (1970). Thomas A Shannon, and Allan B. Wolter, OFM, “Reflections on the Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo,” Theological Studies 51 (1990); Pope John Paul II, encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae, 1995; Pope John Paul II, encyclical letter, Veritatis Splendor, 1993; Germain Grisez. The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, Living a Christian Life. (Quincy, Il: Franciscan Press, 1993).

[19] Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility. Trans. H. Willetts, (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1981), p 4; Jacques Maritain. The Person and the Common Good. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947), chapter 3; William E. May. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life. (Huntington Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000) p. 200 & 204.

[20] May. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life pp. 286-294.

[21] Or the mind, as argued in; S. Parnia, D.G. Waller, R. Yeates, and P. Fenwick, “A Qualitative and Quantitative Study of the incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experience in Cardiac Arrest Survivors,” Resuscitation (February 2001); Sarah Tippit, “Scientist says Mind continues After Brain Dies,” Reuters (June 29, 2001)and Sam Parnia, “Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest and the Mystery of Consciousness,” available at www.datadiwan.de/Sci/MedNet/library/articlesN75/N76+Parnia_nde.htm.

[22] Wallace. The Elements of Philosophy. p. 81, as follows; “The essential unity of man is manifest from the fact that the same concrete man who is experienced in his bodily presence is also a person who thinks. The spiritual activity of thinking and the material givenness of the body are both manifestations of one and the same human reality. Again, the transcendence of the spirit over material reality is manifested by the immateriality of intellection; this means that the human soul, having an activity that is intrinsically independent of material conditions, cannot have a mode of being inferior to its mode of operation, (emphasis mine). In other words, it must be essentially independent of matter. On the other hand, man is really material, and this is not merely accidental; the body belongs essentially to his nature. Now the only way in which one can reconcile all these data is by maintaining that the human soul informs matter as a substantial form; in so doing, however, it is not dependent on matter in the very fact of existing, but, on the contrary, man’s body is dependent on his soul and exists in virtue of the soul’s existence. Such a special and intimate ontological relationship between soul and body alone explains man’s substantial unity, the spiritual character of his soul, and the fact that his body is an essential part of this nature.”

[23] The President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity. (New York:
Public Affairs, 2002), pp. 290-294 in which he suggests that zygotes are not persons because they lack a nervous system thus ascribing to a form of “acquired personhood”.

[24] Note for example the unexplainable experiences of patients undergoing profound hypothermic circulatory arrest in which no brain waves are present (flat EEG’s) and who later report knowledge of what transpired during that portion of their operations. The fact that the brain was “non-functional” during the time in question, strongly suggests an immaterial (spiritual) explanation. Similar experiences have been reported by victims of “sudden cardiac death" in a non-operating room environment.

See also research by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz M.D. of UCLA Medical Center including his book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, (New York: Harper Collins, 2002) e.g. pp. 24-53 in which he asserts that there is a non-material (spiritual) component to intellection that is in the use of the mind which is separate from the brain. I am indebted to Mr. Joel Gibbons for bringing the material of Dr. Schwartz to my attention. His web site can be reached HERE...

[25] Professor Ashley’s video lecture series, lesson number 6.

[26] A practical example is that no matter how educated a person becomes, no one is ever able to consistently choose only the true good that is, what is in the person’s genuine interest.

[27] This is despite the fact that one is unable to explain phenomena which are common to all human beings by invoking Materialism. It is an inadequately powerful paradigm or “world view” (total philosophical system) by which to explain what we observe in the process of living life. For example, the common experience in which people choose to act against what they understand to be contrary to their interest (good) despite recognizing by reason that the action is not in their interest. This is simply inexplicable in a Materialist paradigm.

[28]Axiomatic is that no action can be greater than its cause. The cause of every action must be greater than itself. An entity (being) can not give what it does not have. This is a matter of first principles of being.

[29] Tragically, as a result of Emmanuel Kant and the post-enlightenment Rationalists/modern analytical philosophy, metaphysics has fallen out of favor and with it much of our understanding of reality and human anthropology. This is particularly true now that Materialism (philosophical naturalism) has become the reigning paradigm.

[30] Benjamin Wiker. Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002), especially; 23, 89, 243-54, 301.

[31] Scott Gilbert. Developmental Biology, 5th edition, (Sunderland Mass.: Sinnauer Associates, 1997).

[32] Patrick Lee. Abortion &Unborn Human Life. (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997); Stephen Schwarz. The Moral Question of Abortion. (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990).

[33] Peter Kreeft. A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999); Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 1998).

[34] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, translated, with introduction, notes, and glossary by Terence Irwin, second edition. (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., Inc. 1999); Paul Ramsey. The Patient as Person. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970); Wesley J. Smith. Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America. (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000); Robert P. George. The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis. (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001); Edmund D. Pellegrino, and David C. Thomasma. The Christian Virtues in Medical Practice. (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996); Leon R. Kass. M.D. Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics. (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002); John Finnis. Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory. (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); May, William E. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life. (Huntington Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000).

[35] Smith, Culture of Death. pp. 65, 85-87, 109, 124-125.

[36] Ibid. pp 155-187.

[37] Michael Schooyans. Bioethics and Population: The Choice of Life. (St. Louis, MO.: Central Bureau, CCVA, 1996), p. 3.

[38] Classically, ethics (moral philosophy) ultimately reduces to a rational consideration of means vs: ends in which the "ends" are fixed by nature, and the "means" proper to achieving them are chosen by human beings.

The New Bipolar "Bread and Circus" World

Editorial Opinion by: Dr. J. P. Hubert

A strange but remarkable phenomenon now exists in the realm of social discourse. Virtually all concepts which bear upon public policy are presented to the masses as essentially, a choice between two polar opposites. For example, there is the liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left, Republican vs. Democratic views, etc., as if there are no other frames of reference by which one might consider important issues of the day. This needless to say establishes a completely contrived and false dichotomy. It is as if a very attenuated/ distorting prism or lens has been placed before our collective minds eye.

Increasingly, society seems to have embraced the binary gestalt writ-large. For example, the only format which seems to be universally embraced by the corporate (especially television and radio) media when airing debate with respect to an issue of public policy is to arbitrarily select two individuals from opposite sides of the intellectual/political spectrum. Each is then allowed to spew forth their respective “talking points” in an exchange where rhetorical flourish and rank sophistry is allowed to pass for meaningful elucidation of opinion/position(s). Sober analysis and rational discussion through thoughtful and respectful interchange of ideas is simply never forthcoming.

Rather than a situation where so-called experts are asked to come reason together, what one routinely witnesses is largely impolite jousting between two individuals each of whom function as either paid or unpaid advocates for their respective positions—presumably neither would be invited back again were they to attempt anything else. It is inconceivable that one could arrive at the truth through the employment of this commonly utilized (largely entertainment oriented) vehicle/tactic. What it resembles is something akin to a sporting event where two teams compete in a game/contest until one prevails. The viewing public is expected to enthusiastically support one or the other of the two opponents since their positions are not only (presumably) mutually exclusive but supposedly representative of the entire universe of possibilities rather than artificially truncated ones. The entire situation would be laughable if it were not so serious.

Enter Hegel (As Always)

The above enumerated phenomenon has helped create a permanent societal split or division that--while varying to a minor degree on a percentage basis from time to time--never really comes to grip with the essence or nature of any issue/problem. Perhaps an explanation for this unfortunate dilemma is that an apparent Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) has become the chosen mechanism by which our oligarchical elites attempt to program/mold mass opinion. Not only does this technique seriously limit the bounds of acceptable public discourse, it implies that all issues of social import are ultimately to be resolved on the basis of a “rough and tumble” contest of wills and sophistic verbiage rather than any real sense of absolute truth(s) which might serve as guiding principles. This no doubt is a legacy of the Enlightenment. The crucial point is that the acceptable boundary for public discussion is artificially circumscribed by the ruling elites in such a way as to control outcomes both at the level of topic selection and subsequent debate parameters and verbal/written interaction. A good example of this phenomenon is the charade which transpires every four years in which the public is treated to the spectacle of appearing to select from a large field of candidates—two individuals to vie for President of the United States. In reality, the most interesting and controversial candidates are eliminated fairly early such that the two final candidates actually differ quite minimally in terms of domestic and foreign policy preferences. Judging by the evidence, this is by design of the ruling class. In the most recent presidential election, U.S. citizens were given the choice between two seemingly different individuals, one apparently traditional (Mc Cain) the other more exotic representing “change” (Obama)--who Americans presumably preferred. Yet, both were clearly funded by and beholden to the elite power brokers whose interests would be served irrespective of which one prevailed.

It is noteworthy that after only 4 months in office, President Obama has largely followed the Bush/Cheney foreign and domestic (especially economic) policies despite campaigning vociferously against them. There is no evidence that Mr. Obama intends to dismantle the American empire or significantly reduce US militarism. There is nothing to establish that he has repudiated the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. In fact he has authorized offensive US military (armed drones) attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have killed innocent non-combatants and most disturbingly announced a policy of preventive detention of “terrorists.” The latter immoral and illegal policy is more aggressive than what the Bush/Cheney administration attempted in that regard.

Abandonment of Reality, Reason

In reality, there are very few issues of public policy which can be adequately considered through the prism of a binary lens--even though doing so has become the new norm. Similarly the related notion that all social/political questions must have either a yes or no answer flies in the face of reality—if true all “what” questions or those having to do with the nature or being of things would be eliminated— an unfortunate but foreseeable effect of the post-Enlightenment abandonment of metaphysics. The result is an artificial oversimplification which does not mirror reality but instead serves as a rhetorical devise by which a proponent of one particular view attempts to dis-intellectually “score points” or in contemporary parlance “spin” the target audience.

Integral to construction of the bipolar worldview is the need to carefully narrow the formulation of any potential issue or premise. For example, one is either for or against gay “marriage” for or against enhanced interrogation (torture), in favor of or against “pre-emptive” war (when what is really meant is preventive war). All are vacuous notions without a careful articulation of what is actually meant by these terms. Once adequately defined that is, with precision, it is sometimes but not always possible to take a pro or con position with respect to some of the so-called issues of the day. The Western legal system now steeped in legal positivism and based as it is in a binary adversarial process clearly contributes to this phenomenon as well.


Constant "Evolution"

A related trend is the completely ad-hoc division that has occurred over what is considered a liberal vs.: conservative view with respect to a given issue. For example, strict literal interpretations of each term (liberal/conservative) yield entirely different conclusions than can be had from a review of commonly understood usages of the terms. In other words, the monikers liberal and conservative have no fixed or foundational meaning and are constantly subject to alteration based on the changing nature of various interest groups that comprise their political bases from time to time. This leads to incompatible contradictions with regard to the policies of self-described members of each group.

It is noteworthy that traditional Paleoconservatives eschew foreign wars of conquest and oppose so-called pre-emptive (preventive) wars. Neoconservatives enthusiastically support both. Which view should be thought to characterize the conservative position? In reality it is a >matter of opinion only. Historically, Neoconservatism is clearly the aberration. The change presumably reflects the result of an internal political power struggle rather than a natural (ideological) evolution among adherents of conservatism.

Theoretically, conservatives (in the sense of preserving the status quo) should favor the continuation of whatever has gone before. If historically the United States engaged in defensive war only--than preventive war would be incompatible with conservatism and vice-versa. By analogy if abortion has become the legal norm, after decades, the conservative view should be pro-abortion. Obviously, the terms are not meant to be taken literally yet it becomes clear that there really is an ad-hoc and arbitrary nature to what is considered liberal and conservative from time to time. Neither term is based on a stable worldview (epistemology, metaphysics and moral philosophy).


Similar contradictions have occurred with respect to the policy positions held by proponents of liberalism (now referred to as adherents of progressive politics—one assumes the change in name was made ostensibly for perceived commercial advantage). Prior to 1973, liberals as defined by the Democratic Party held--along with conservatives as put forth by the Republican Party--that abortion on demand was immoral (the prevailing moral philosophy at the time was still heavily influenced by the ...Christian Ethic) and should be kept illegal as a matter of public policy or at least left to the states to regulate. As a significant percentage of the Democratic Party base became composed of individuals with an interest in liberalizing the existing laws with respect to abortion, the party became “pro-choice” meaning in favor of either federal legislation or judicial action legalizing abortion on demand. In this case, the term liberal from a literal perspective appears to be more in-keeping with the moniker. The change however was made because of the demands of an active, large and growing interest group within the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment. Does that mean that pre-1973 the Democratic Party was conservative not liberal? Yes and no, the point here is that these terms are completely fluid and ultimately without lasting/foundational meaning. What is favored today may be shunned tomorrow by either. To say that one is either liberal or conservative without clarification/amplification is really to reveal almost nothing other than the affiliation of one’s current power-base.

Will to Power

Perhaps more astoundingly, the terms liberal and conservative have no cohesive/conceptual underpinnings which might unify the various disparate strains which make up each. In some respects, liberals appear to espouse conservative policies, in others, conservatives embrace liberal ones. Neoconservatives as has already been mentioned embrace aggressive foreign policy including preventive wars of aggression. This in reality is a very liberal not conservative view. Analogously, most liberals currently oppose foreign wars of aggression and excessive U.S. militarism (in the maintenance of American hegemony) despite the fact that to do so is really a traditionally conservative position. Thoughtful persons find that neither political party has a consistent underlying conceptually unified organizing principle. What then attracts the vast majority of people to one or the other belief system? In the absence of any core worldview orientation it appears that the choice of one or the other is based solely on the need to posses a power-base from which to operate. Since third parties (political) have not been successful in the United States, the choices available are either liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican irrespective of the fact that these terms are constantly changing and without ultimate meaning.

The media (talk-radio and cable especially) essentially mirror this artificial division. For example, Fox News represents the Neoconservative position; MSNBC largely reflects the Liberal or Progressive viewpoint. Similar divisions characterize talk-radio. Traditional or Paleoconservative views are left largely unrepresented by the corporate media with a few exceptions (e.g. Patrick J. Buchanan).

Part of the current bi-polar split involves a separation between Secularism and Traditionalism as the United States progressively abandons all semblance of tradition in favor of Secular Humanism. While liberalism/progressivism almost entirely ascribes to Secularism, there remain parts of the “conservative” coalition which attempt to adhere to more traditionalist views—primarily those Paleoconservatives from whom the Neoconservatives have rested control of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, even here, there is a great deal of overlap. For example, the so-called Libertarian wing of conservatism favors the liberalization of controlled substance laws e.g. Marijuana which most Paleoconservatives oppose. In that sense, Libertarians are much more like liberals (progressives) than traditional conservatives. They are more inclined to accept gay “marriage” than are Paleoconservatives on the grounds of individual liberty or on the basis of civil or personal “rights” criteria. These rights however are fictitious in that they are ungrounded in any fixed or foundational human anthropology (nature or essence). That is to say since the Enlightenment and in the wake of Darwinism (Darwinian philosophy or metaphysical naturalism), human nature is assumed to be fluid. Modern "rights" simply refer to the constantly changing desires/choices which various individuals and groups wish to see codified in the law from time to time.

It becomes apparent that the artificial bi-polar split articulated here is completely without ideological foundation. Evidence seems to indicate that it has become a favored mechanism by which the ruling elites exercise control over the masses. In reality this amounts to a kind of not so subtle Hegelian “brain-washing” which is utilized to change public opinion by making it appear that issues are being fairly debated and democratically resolved. One feels forced to conclude that the binary worldview is nothing but a ruse--a kind of “bread and circus” extravaganza which functions to keep the proletariat pacified while the oligarchical elites proceed with advancing their goals.

What Ever Happened to: War of Necessity Only?

Bush Doctrine of Preventive War is Immoral

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

Once upon a time it was part of conventional wisdom--based as it was in the "golden rule ethic" that "picking a fight" was immoral--whether by nation states or individuals. This moral tenet flowed from the first and second principles (of right reason) of the Natural Law: 1) do good/avoid evil and 2) treat your neighbor fairly--summarized by "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

When/where the golden rule ethic still reigned, it was understood that even though one could legitimately defend oneself against aggression, it was always and everywhere morally wrong to instigate hostilities. That is to say, it is always morally licit to defend against aggression but never to cause it.

Several fundamental underlying assumptions are basic to understanding the “golden rule” as it is applied to war.

First, in moral philosophy one must assume that human nature is fixed and not changing that is to say, all human beings are assumed to be of equal worth and their essence (nature or quiddity [what-ness]) is constant i.e. unchanging (This in no way means that all human beings have equal talents and abilities). It is important to note that there is no empirical (scientific) evidence that human nature is changing—cumulative evidence establishes the opposite and of course Divine Revelation calls for a fixed human nature as well (All the major Theistic belief systems ascribe to this view). Moreover, the empirical evidence which is available clearly demonstrates that human beings are the most highly developed and complex entities in material existence. There are no defensible bases on which to assert that all human beings are not of equal worth which do not reduce to vacuous claims of unwarranted entitlement.

While a “fixed human nature” may conflict with what radical Darwinists who embrace metaphysical naturalism may propound, such a view is a philosophical not scientific notion and an incoherent one at that. The very notion that it would be possible to determine right and wrong--if human nature is constantly changing—is pure fantasy. Only if human nature is fixed does it become possible to hold that right and wrong in the moral sense exists or is discernible. If human nature is evolving; then right and wrong is evolving as well—a situation which is unintelligible. Virtually any behavior can be justified since it can be effectively argued that some people are more evolved than others and therefore their behavior no matter how apparently objectionable is also acceptable. This leads to complete social Darwinism—survival of the fittest where “might” alone “makes right”—a prescription for total moral anarchy.

Second, any moral philosophy worthy of the name must include the notion of universality—that is, its moral tenets must be applicable to all human beings—a reality which flows from the existence of a fixed human nature (anthropology). If this is not the case, it becomes impossible to determine right and wrong at all. Identical behavior(s) can be considered morally acceptable by one person and not another or by one nation but not another simply by refusing to apply the relevant moral principles universally. What otherwise would always and everywhere be wrong for example might be right for some but wrong for others simply because of who it is that is performing the moral calculus in question. Under these circumstances, “intent” is allowed to become controlling since it can make behavior which is obviously wrong appear justifiable. Such a situation is very common in contemporary International Relations where the classical tripartite Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis (means, ends, and circumstances) that is moral calculus has been abandoned for rank Utilitarianism—too often resulting in obvious moral injustices.

Beginning with the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States discarded a 2000+ year old golden rule ethical proscription against initiating wars of aggression in which only legitimate defense not offense was understood to be acceptable—i.e. defensive war as a last resort only! It is difficult to overestimate just how radical this notion is. Particularly troublesome is the fact that the attacks themselves--in the words of Osama bin Laden--were the result of perceived immoral behavior on our part (the unilateral support of Israel over the Palestinian Arabs including our dismissal of their terrible plight and our garrisoning of US forces in the Holy Lands of Mecca and Medina; apparently contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed among other things).

While the intentional killing of innocent human beings (as occurred on 9/11) can never be morally justified, it would be foolish of us not to recognize that our behavior abroad can have disastrous consequences when we fail to consider our actions in terms of the two principles outlined above. That is to say; Palestinian Arabs are unwilling to accept that their lives are not worth as much as are Israelis and rightfully so since all human beings by virtue of their fixed human nature are equally valuable-- if any are valuable at all. For Theists and particularly Christian Theists this is axiomatic of course by virtue or the fact that man is created in the image of God (imago Dei). Moreover, we would by the principle of universality detest the stationing of foreign troops on our land and thus the fact that Muslim Arabs do as well is completely understandable. To suggest otherwise is irrational and or dishonest in the extreme.

For anyone to allege that the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner could under any conceivable set of circumstances be morally licit (in the recent Presidential campaign Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all did so) is to completely depart from the golden rule ethic which has governed humanity for over 2 millennia. By their very nature, both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons intentionally kill innocent human beings. This is 100% certain from an objective perspective and therefore provides the moral certitude required in performing the relevant moral calculus. Under no circumstances can nuclear weapons be used offensively. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that they could ever be utilized defensively either due to the fact that they invariably would be associated with the killing of innocent non-combatants (It is impossible for the author to see how such a use could avoid the mass intentional killing of innocent human beings. It is not legitimate to argue that such killing would represent so-called “collateral damage “since it would be completely foreseeable and thus avoidable). While conventional weapons are potentially usable in a morally licit way (for defensive purposes only), from a moral perspective, it is clear that the use of nuclear weapons under any set of circumstances is morally illicit due to the moral certitude that doing so always results in the intentional killing of innocent human beings and in tremendous numbers.

We have over the past 7+ years in a sense crossed the Rubicon where the waging of war is concerned, meaning we have stepped over the “red-line.” It has now become acceptable ala the “Bush Doctrine” to instigate offensive wars of aggression based on nothing more than a probability calculation that a given country might someday under certain imagined circumstances represent an actual or imminent threat to American national security or survival. This cannot be justified or accepted when subjected to rational/traditional (scholastic) moral philosophical precepts and must be rejected by all human beings of good will.

Unfortunately, there is no credible evidence available to establish that the Obama administration has repudiated the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of preventive war. Moreover, President Obama has demonstrated vis a vis the Charles Freeman affair that he is unwilling/unable to oppose the Israel (radical Zionist) Lobby. Americans should be especially concerned that Zionist hawk and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will maneuver the President into a preventive attack on Iran--which would be catastrophic for the US and the world.

Neo-Conservatism The New “Stealth” Order / World View

This essay is reproduced by special request of a reader.

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

A new “stealth” worldview has become popular among Secularists in the United States. It is referred to as Neoconservatism[1] and has been gaining influence for over 25 years in the wake of the discord and unrest associated with the 1960’s-1970’s and the Viet Nam War.[2] The original features of Neoconservatism are found below:

Table 1. 6 Propositions of Neoconservatism (First Generation)*
1. Theory of History- Evil exists and one must not shrink from one's duty.
2. Power- No substitute for it, especially military might. Power is Salvation.
3. America must be a Global leader- Creating a peaceful World requires "power." America is exceptional.
4. Respect for Authority is paramount- requires a “Religious” population best promoted through “traditional values.”
5. Constant Crisis Mode is necessary- the situation is always urgent and the need for action compelling. Disaster is always looming.
6. Leadership is the Antidote to “Crisis”- Leaders must Exercise power.
*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.

The author penned an essay originally available at TCR now at Lulu.com which outlined the two major worldviews which vie for ascendancy in the West; Secularism vs: Traditionalism.[3] It is fair to say that much of the Secularist agenda is either actively or passively embraced by the secular leaders of the neoconservative movement. Tragically many “hangers-on” including Evangelical Protestants and neo-conservative Catholics have yet to recognize that they have so to speak “hitched their wagons” to the Secularist camp by embracing the policies of the neoconservatives now in power, including the elites of both political parties. It is ironic indeed that neither has yet to appreciate the degree to which the neoconservative agenda is incompatible with their Traditionalist worldviews. In fact it is also fair to say that virtually all of the “hot-button” issues of our day are either significantly impacted or controlled by neoconservative ideology including American foreign and domestic policy. At its core, Neoconservatism embraces a Darwinian (survival of the fittest) mentality (epistemologically, metaphysically and morally) in which the historical reality of evil is recognized as foundational, the answer to which is overwhelming power (military and economic) and deception[4] of the masses.

Neo Conservatism and Morality:

In the moral realm for example, neoconservative thinking embraces the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in which the “ends” sought are allowed to justify the “means.” The author has written extensively as have many other moral philosophers who employ the Classical Aristotelian/Thomistic approach that utilitarianism is a completely inadequate moral philosophy for the solving of complex moral problems. The results obtained are almost always contrary to the Natural Law and Catholic moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. The following represents a summary in table form taken from one of the author’s formal presentations.

Table 2. Utilitarianism*
1.[Ends Justify Means] in pursuit of pleasure or “choice”. [Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill as part of British Empiricist movement in wake of Descartes “turn to subject” and abandonment of Aristotle’s “middle road” epistemology and his view of science in exchange for Newton’s mechanistic Cosmology.]

2. Non-moral theory in which the “greatest good” (aggregate pleasure) or benefit is sought for the greatest number, reduces to rabid notions of individual autonomy. Pragmatic, consequentialist, and detached from people as persons in the fullest sense of that term. Totally non-functional in practice unless Materialism is assumed.

3. Lacks explanatory power required for solving complex ethical dilemmas.

*Repudiated by JPII in Veritatis splendor under rubric of “Proportionalism” and “Consequentialism” Moral absolutes are rejected and Rom, 3: 8 is violated. Classical means/ends analysis is repudiated as is classical tripartite structure of moral act analysis.

Neoconservatism and the Law:

Utilitarianism frequently involves an absolute repudiation of the Natural Law in favor of the principles of the Enlightenment in that there are no fixed (Transcendent) truths which must be recognized or served. In fact this reality explains much of what functions as American neoconservative foreign and domestic policy including its approach to the U.S. constitution and the judiciary.

For example, neoconservatives pay lip service to the constitutional principle of “original intent” but in practice embrace legal (pragmatism) positivism (ultimately a Darwinian concept from its inception)[5] rather than grounding the civil law in the Natural Law and Divine Revelation as the Founders did. This means that all civil laws are changeable based on evolving social and moral standards. Thus we had President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts is a legal pragmatist tactician of superb ability who makes no bones about rejecting the principles of the Natural Law and Divine Revelation in functioning as a Judge. He recognizes no overarching (Transcendent or Touchstone) principles which are always and everywhere true. He stated clearly before the Senate Judiciary Committee that his judicial approach will be to consider the individual case before him the so-called “law of the case” with its legal precedent (Stare Decisis) first and foremost in his mind, irrespective of whether it violates the common morality and the Natural Law. Only thereafter will he consider other issues such as “workability” fairness and the like which might be considered for example in potentially overturning a standing or “settled” law.

Robert’s view of human anthropology (based on his writings and Senate Judiciary Committee testimony) is Darwinian/neo-conservative as well rather than traditionalist. He specifically denies being influenced by any “personal” (code for religious or moral) deeply held beliefs when functioning in his role as a jurist, making him a “secularist” in practice. Logic dictates that either he was honest in his testimony and therefore has no qualms about civil laws which contradict the Natural Law and Divine Revelation such as abortion, or he was purposely dishonest and evasive in order to be confirmed (a case of the “ends justify the means” that). In either case, he embraces utilitarianism rather than classical moral philosophy/Catholic moral theology and we can expect little help from him in reversing Roe v: Wade.

Neoconservatism and Economics:

In the economic realm neoconservatives are also Darwinian.[6] Most are devoted to the unbridled free market capitalism of Adam Smith where brute “market forces” are allowed (unfettered) to determine the landscape.[7] This system inherently predisposes to “haves” and “have-nots” a kind of bi-polar class system; the rich and the poor with very little long-term middle class existence or stability (where a tripartite class system insures a healthy middle class as is seen in “managed” capitalism sensitive to the concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity). The controlling economic gestalt as in foreign policy is “winning (overwhelming others) by the use of superior force and power” amounting to what is essentially a zero-sum game. Thus we see ever increasing consolidation of companies into mega-corporations and the creation of overpowering monopolies, case in point the large oil companies which engaged in “price-gouging” due to the effects of Hurricane’s Katrina and Rita. In order for some to become unconscionably rich, others must be poor, since there are only a finite number of resources available. Neoconservatives have absolutely no problem with this as is evidenced by the Bush administration Secretary of Energy’s comment that the oil companies are doing a good job after the Hurricanes (There profits had tripled in the following year).

As an example of the above, we have in the United States the largest differential worldwide when comparing the yearly compensation of CEO’s of major corporations and that of their lowest respective wage-earners. Catholic teaching holds that both communism and unbridled capitalism are morally evil since they are destructive of basic human dignity. Free Market Capitalism must be “managed” in light of the principles of the Natural Law and be sensitive to the true nature of “man” as created in the Imago Dei in order to be just.[8] Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena.[9] This explains why Americans tolerate the consumption and export of pornography in ever increasing numbers. There is absolutely no inhibition when it comes to generating income whether the so called “free enterprise is morally licit or not. The objectification of women and the young is encouraged (as part of inter-state commerce and ever larger profits; both being instrumentalized through seductive television, “bill-board” ads and motion pictures in order to maximize economic growth). All of this is perfectly compatible with Darwinian neoconservative economic policy and rabid unbridled free market capitalism. This is an example of utilizing persons not as “subjects” deserving of basic human dignity and respect but as objects to be used, abused and discarded (even secular Kantian's should cringe).

History:

The history of American Neoconservatism arguably dates to the early 20th century and several academic German/Jewish intellectuals including Professor Leo Strauss[10] who was purportedly a secular Zionist (Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Chicago) the philosophical progenitor of many contemporary public policy elites including several neoconservative Bush administration officials and other members of the Washington establishment in both political parties.[11] Strauss was an avid opponent of modern liberalism having been an admirer of Martin Heidegger and by extension Nietzsche’s philosophy (itself Darwinian).[12] It was later developed by several first generation neoconservatives including Norman Podhoretz[13] (for many years editor of Commentary) and Irving Kristol. Later, in the second generation came Irving’s son William (now editor of Commentary’s “replacement” The Weekly Standard), Michael Ledeen, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle among others. The following represents a modification of the first generation neoconservative principles outlined above.

Table 3. 5 Propositions of Second Generation Neoconservatism*

1. American Global dominion is benign and other nations agree.
2. Failure of U.S. to sustain imperial status would result in global disorder.
3. Force works and must be used.
4. U.S. Military Supremacy is essential.
5. Idealism not Realism will achieve stated goals. (The Realist policies of Kissinger and Powell must be repudiated).

*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.

Andrew Bacevich has written well of American Neoconservatism;

“The conception of politics to which neoconservatives paid allegiance owed more to the ethos of the Left than to the orthodoxies of the Right. Their ultimate ideological objective was not to preserve but to transform. They viewed state power not as a necessary evil but as a positive good to be cultivated and then deployed in pursuit of large objectives.”[14]
“Their aim was nothing if not ambitious; to reverse the verdict of the 1960’s, to repair the political and cultural damage done by that decade, and ….to restore American power and assertiveness on the world stage.” [15]

It is clear from the above that many neoconservatives were former “leftists” who wished to transform society through revolution. As the Democratic party embraced pacifism and sexual libertinism in the 1960’ and 70’s, neoconservatives moved to the Republican Party with the goal of co-opting what had historically been a political party made up largely of paleoconservatives (traditional conservatives) and isolationist libertarians who eschewed foreign military escapades and “big government” spending. By ingeniously enlisting the aid of Protestant Evangelicals who despised what they viewed as a leftist led disintegration of Judeo-Christian morality and destruction of the military (for them a bastion of traditional values and morality), the neoconservatives succeeded in gaining control of the Republican Party and much of the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment in less than two decades. This was a phenomenal accomplishment by any standard.

It is important to recognize that the Republican Party and much of the Washington power elite are now controlled by neoconservatives. The term is oxymoronic in that there is almost nothing “conservative” about Neoconservatism. It does not wish to conserve anything least of all tradition. It is committed to increasing and projecting economic and military power. Its goal is to “transform” American society and the world along secular neoconservative (Darwinian “survival of the fittest) lines. This necessarily requires the use of a utilitarian “moral” philosophy which everyone should understand and ignore at their peril. Recall that utilitarianism is incompatible with Catholic Moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. See Pope John Paul II’s seminal work Veritatis Splendor (1993) for details including his repudiation of proportionalism, consequentialism etc.

Neoconservatism and Protestant Evangelicalism:

Bacevich cogently writes in his book that Protestant evangelicalism had a major role in increasing U.S. militarism/imperialism dating to the post-Vietnam era (due to its belief that the U.S. needed to be strong militarily in order to protect Israel against any and all aggression [a result of their pre-millennial dispensationalism] which is part of their understanding of the "end-time" tribulation scenario and their belief that Armageddon is imminent).[16] He argues that the secular “Neo-cons” teamed up with the Protestant Evangelicals to take over the Republican Party recognizing in them a powerful group they could co-opt for their plan to use the U.S. military as a tool for foreign “power projection” (domination). The neo-con's wished to bring American [democratic/actually imperialistic] "values" to the entire world through "force" if necessary in order to eliminate potential threats before they materialize as modern day Israel does.[17] This leads inexorably to the Bush Doctrine of preventive/pre-emptive war.[18] Perhaps the sine-quê-non of Neoconservatism as it is practiced today is the projection of American power abroad through use of the all professional voluntary U.S. military. This has also led to what Bacevich terms a growing American militarism/imperialism where the military is increasingly isolated from the public it serves.

Many social/cultural conservatives have wondered aloud why the Republican Party courts their votes at election time only to largely abandon them afterwards.[19] The answer in part can be found in the fact that neo-conservative secularists now completely control the Republican Party and they have teamed-up with Protestant Evangelicals in order to create a winning plurality. Secular neo-conservatives have for over two decades recognized that if they “played-along” with Evangelicals (in their quest to restore “moral values” to the U.S. by using the military triad of duty, honor, country as a template) they could utilize the power it conferred by engaging in an activist/hegemonic foreign policy.[20] In fact neoconservatives are enamored by religion and the fervor it inspires in achieving their goals. Few however are personally spiritually committed preferring to see religion as a sort of balm for the masses. All of this should not but unfortunately does come as a complete surprise to many Evangelicals and other cultural and paleo-conservatives. However, once the election is over, the “lip service” regarding “family and moral values” has been paid and it is back to business as usual (the pursuit of economic and military power), again alienating cultural and paleoconservatives and even some libertarian conservatives. Perhaps the only reason they remain loyal to the Party is due to the ineffectiveness of third party candidacies in the U.S. Needless to say, they derive next to nothing for their loyalty and support.

Foreign Policy:

Turning to the foreign policy initiatives of American Neoconservatism including the use of warfare in general as an extension of U.S. power and specifically the Iraq War, it is useful to engage in a formal moral analysis utilizing the “3” classical elements which are applicable to every moral decision. For a classical moral (philosophical) analysis of the so-called “preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War as a function of neoconservative foreign policy, the following is presented which is borrowed from the author’s “PowerPoint” presentation on a speech entitled: “Justice and Freedom for the Human Embryo” in which a similar moral analysis was carried out.

Table 4. 3 Classical Components of a Moral Decision*
1. The OBJECT freely specified [Chosen] (what it’s about),
proximate “end” (Species).** Also called “MEANS.”
2. The INTENT, motive or further “End” (Genus).
3. The CIRCUMSTANCES or situation.

*May, William E. An Introduction to Moral Theology. Second Edition, Huntington Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003, pp. 170-174. Aquinas held that all “3” must be licit in order for the moral act to be justified (S.T. 1-2, 18, entire question).
** Pope JPII, Veritatis splendor, 71-81, 1993. Specifically #78 “The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.” (Referencing Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 18, a. 6.)

It is readily apparent that there exist “3” classical elements which must be considered in each and every moral decision the object freely chosen (means) the intent (motive) and the circumstances. All “3” must be correctly specified and applied in order for the moral decision to be valid. With respect to the decision to engage in a preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq, the elements are properly depicted as follows:

Table 5. The “3” Components of a Moral Decision in the Preventive/Pre-emptive Iraq War*

1. Object freely specified, (Chosen), or Proximate “end”, also called “MEANS.”
Offensive Military “First Strike Lethality” to effect Iraqi Regime Change [Neo- Cons substitute “spreading democracy” and American “values” in the Middle East here] which is incorrect/deceptive in that accomplishing it requires a morally illicit [violent] “means” (technique or method) for dubiously “insuring” American security (the intent). The objective freely chosen is Offensive “First Strike Lethality” not “spreading democracy” in the Middle East.

2. Intent Motive or Further End.
Insure American Security and limit or eliminate Terrorism

3. Circumstances of Situation.
Terrorism and Reduced Security is the 21st Century Reality. Was there WMD in Iraq prior to invasion? (Analysis assumes a pre-invasion perspective).

The above demonstrates utilizing classical Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical principles why “elite” neo-conservative reasoning is in error with respect to waging the Iraq War. The actual “means” employed are evil that is morally illicit since they involve choosing to inflict “first-strike” offensive lethality upon a perceived enemy (contrary to the Just War Doctrine which allows for legitimate defense only and to Rom. 3: 8). “Spreading Democracy” while potential valuable, cannot be accomplished “defensively” by force. The two concepts are contradictory. Democracy can be proposed but not imposed. “Spreading Democracy” must be done passively (peacefully) to be morally licit. Since not all “3” of the elements in the moral triad above are valid, the conclusion is that a preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War is unjustified morally.

Some neoconservative moralists have argued that the neoconservative “Bush Doctrine” of preventive/pre-emptive war is an example of “Double Effect.” Therefore, it is necessary to review the classical requirements of same depicted below.

Table 6. “Double Effect” in Practice*
(Could Preventive War be “Double Effect”?)

1. The directly intended object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself) i.e. it must be a good action judged from its moral object.
2. The intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible (i.e. must only indirectly intend the harm).
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the foreseen harmful effects and be not achievable without them.
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects.
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

*Principles of Double Effect from Finnis, John. Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision and Truth, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991).
Answer: NO, #’s 1, 3, 4 & 5 are violated by engaging in Preventive/Pre-emptive war.

As can be readily appreciated, preventive/pre-emptive war violates # 1 above since it is always and everywhere wrong to purposely wage offensive war (by the tenets of the Just War Doctrine and sacred writ (Rom. 3: 8) that one must never do evil that good may come of it). In #2 above neoconservatives argue that they do not directly intend to harm innocents since they now utilize “smart weaponry.” However, they do intend to lethally harm the enemy combatants offensively rather than defensively by employing aggressively lethal offensive “means” through use of their weapons and they do kill innocent non-combatants as a matter of routine which is completely predictable and knowable in advance. One could give them the benefit of the doubt here regarding the intent not to harm innocents, however, the destructive nature of the “smart” weapons and the regularity of large numbers of innocent combatant deaths (in the thousands in Iraq) makes this difficult. In # 3 above, it is clear that the potential benefit of installing a friendly “democratic” regime in Iraq is had only by means of the foreseen harmful effect of invasion, thus violating it. Number 4 has been violated in that the harmful effects in Iraq are horrendous by any conceivable standard and for the foreseeable future outweigh any potential positive benefit. Number 5 has been violated because the harmful effects have immediately followed the action without significant beneficial effect to date. There can be no advantage to a democratically elected interim government which is unable to provide basic infrastructure and security for its people since it has failed in it duty to govern. In that regard they are worse off than prior to the invasion. Therefore, it is clear that the preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq is not an example of double effect.

In light of the above, it is now necessary to state clearly that the so-called “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption/preventive war is fundamentally incompatible with the Just War Doctrine[21] and with Catholic teaching on war as it has been continuously promulgated by the Magisterium. The Just War Doctrine is reproduced here as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Table 7. “Just War Doctrine” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 2309)

1. The strict conditions for legitimate defense (emphasis mine) by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: \
2. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
3. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
4. There must be serious prospects of success;
5. 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.

"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”[22]

Catholics and the Iraq War

The author is well aware that a significant number of American neoconservative Catholic moralists utilizing the above criteria have concluded that the Iraq War is “just” and compatible with the JWD properly applied. Please see my essay [now contained in my book War, Peace and Terrorism: A Return to Sanity in a Post- 9/11 World now available at Lulu.com] entitled; “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? for a response and refutation of that position.[23] In that regard the reader is reminded that multiple and consistent Vatican statements were promulgated by the Magisterium in protest of the planned U.S. invasion of Iraq, meaning that despite the high level Vatican visit of Catholic neoconservative Michael Novak on behalf of the U.S. administration, the Magisterium rejected the U.S. argument for preventive war. This means that American Catholic neoconservatives are at odds with the historical/traditional position which the Church has taken on “Just War” as well as the recent reiteration of same by the Magisterium. In fact the neo-conservative attempt (depicted above) to morph legitimate “defense” against aggression into preventive/pre-emptive (offensive) war is tantamount to metaphysical slight of hand that is; sophistry designed to justify a new (neo-conservative) approach to the projection of American hegemony through the use of military power whether recognized by the respective Catholic neoconservatives or not.[24] The result has been an increasingly aggressive imperial foreign policy and a repudiation of Just War Doctrinal principles where offensive use of military force is utilized to advance perceived American “interests” abroad[25] These “interests” too often reduce to simple greed which in the case of Iraq includes American dependence on Gulf Oil for the maintenance of an overly indulgent use of total world resources. Needless to say it is an extremely dangerous course and one which few Americans fully understand.

Unfortunately, some seemingly misguided pro-Iraq War neoconservative Catholic moralists who support the secularist neo-conservative stance on the Iraq War have also argued (apparently on the basis of language in the CCC) that the decision to wage war is a prudential one which is appropriately made only by the civil authorities who bear the ultimate responsibility for the common good (see quotation in Table 7 above).[26] While this is technically true it is only instrumentally so. As this author wrote in another essay:

”In a representative democracy, issues of public policy are debated and subjected to a vote of the citizenry, after which initiatives are enacted primarily through their elected representatives including the President. This cannot be accomplished without the populous being adequately informed and their wishes being known. Thus it is clear that the public has a responsibility for evaluating the moral licitness of any potential war prior to its being waged and after it has commenced. It is vital that the population remain engaged enough to provide the necessary oversight and re-evaluation as war is waged. What may be justified initially may not remain so due to changes “on the ground.” Therefore, the argument that war-making is a prudential judgment of the responsible authorities only is very misleading and results in wrongly absolving from moral responsibility the population in whose name it is waged.”[27]

Tragically many Catholic rank and file “Neo-con's” have “bought into” the entire secularist neoconservative/Evangelical enterprise not recognizing that much of it including the foreign military policy portion of neo-conservatism is contrary to Catholic teaching. It is based on a Calvinist rendering of scripture grounded as it is in the TULIP doctrine the first principle of which is “Total Moral Depravity” that is, since the “fall from grace” human beings are hopelessly lost despite an initial very good Creation. The Catholic position instead is more balanced and holds that human beings are seriously wounded but not totally depraved and continues to see good in the created realm including some good in every human life since all are created in the Imago Dei whether friend or foe, saint or sinner. Calvinist/neoconservative apologists utilize a largely Old Testament (e.g. pro-capital punishment as found in the Pentateuch) understanding of morality which also stresses the concept of total moral depravity thus tending to view the world in a bi-polar way that is; good vs: bad, saints vs: sinners, right vs: wrong, us vs: them. This ironically is actually quite consistent with the secularist neoconservative (Darwinist) view of “might makes right” and the historical reality of “evil” that remains a pillar of neoconservative philosophy (how ironic that most evangelical's detest Darwin and yet many embrace Darwinian (neoconservative) policies).

The Catholic view makes use of the Socratic/Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis and avoids the post-Enlightenment [a substitute for Christianity] (Mills and Humean) adversarial culture (based as it is in the utilitarian and empirical approach in which no transcendent absolute truths exist). It is worth noting that the U.S. inherited this tradition from Great Britain being that the original Americans and Founding Fathers were direct descendants of the Enlightenment and influenced by the British Empiricist movement. Tragically, most Evangelicals and neoconservative Catholics are apparently unaware of this.[28]

The Catholic position again is more nuanced recognizing that each human being is a work in progress and with sanctifying grace can eventually partake of the beatific vision via a process of continued conversion through the power of the Holy Spirit. Due to their Calvinist hermeneutic, Evangelical neoconservatives often conceive of "offensive" military might as evincing the hand of God at work in favoring a “chosen people.” Andrew Bacevich writes that Evangelical's saw this Old Testament pattern played out again in modern Israel’s “preventive” invasion of Lebanon and their pre-emptive/prophylactic bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, in which the Israeli’s employed “offensive action” (not limiting themselves to defensive actions compatible with "Just War” doctrine) in order to prevent or avert a perceived threat.[29] Given Evangelical’s (Calvinist) experience with modern Israel’s “successful” preventive attacks, and their belief that the United States represents the “New Jerusalem” the “shining city upon a hill” with a manifest destiny to rule the world until the rise of the revived Roman Empire and the anti-Christ, this Old Testament hermeneutic was readily assimilable to an aggressive (neoconservative) foreign military policy of imperialism or “might makes right.”

Bacevich effectively argues in the author’s estimation that Evangelical’s assent to both Israeli offensive actions signaled for neoconservatives the acceptance of a total redefinition of classic/historical Just War Doctrinal principles (which previously sanctioned only defensive actions).[30] In way of clarification, neoconservatives and their evangelical partners no longer accept "Just War" principles as classically understood and neither does modern Israel. Both have been granted a sort of “chosen” status (what Bacevich refers to as a special dispensation) which renders a strict application of the JWD gratuitous. They have redefined “defense” to include “preventive attacks” based upon a probability calculus that is heavily dependent on “intelligence” factors which have now been shown to be unreliable. Thus it is apparent that well catechized Catholics should have recognized the “Bush Doctrine” as incompatible with the Catholic faith through the use of reason and by the consistent statements promulgated by the Vatican.

Catholic teaching interprets the Old Testament in light of the New and in light of the reality of the incarnated Christ who advocated conversion of heart (soul) as well as peaceful.[31] evangelism (propose the Gospel not impose it). Christ renounced the Old Testament practice of capital punishment when presented with a concrete example in which the old law called for it.[32] Christ also repudiated adherence to the “letter of the law” without proper attention to its “spirit” and redressed the Pharisees and Sadducee's for failing to “practice what they preached.” In HIS very person Christ embodied the progressive arrow of non-violence and mercy (rather than the simple justice of an “eye for an eye”) which followed the march of history from the earliest Patriarchal period to the time of the Roman Empire during which He lived. The Calvinist (false Augustinian) emphasis on Old Testament morality which is integral to Protestant Evangelicalism and is endorsed by secular neoconservatives is therefore contrary to orthodox Catholicism as it has been handed down for almost 2000 years. It would be well for “Catholic” neoconservatives to reflect on this reality.

It is apparent then that the elites who presently control foreign and domestic policy (represented by the leaders of both political parties) in the United States are wedded to a secular worldview in which economic and military power is the paramount goal. Their neoconservative “movement” represents a new stealth 21st century pagan (post-enlightenment) “Secularism.” It is evident that they have shrewdly enlisted many unsuspecting Protestant Evangelicals, and politically conservative “Catholics” as well as dissatisfied paleo-conservatives and libertarian conservatives and independents in their cause. The “movement” is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Catholicism rightly understood. It behooves faithful Catholics to shine the light of transparency on what is increasingly an immoral enterprise.

NOTES:

[1] Neoconservatism has 6 basic tenets in its original form, 5 according to the second generation of neoconservatives now in power. It bears very little resemblance to classical (Paleo) conservatism which favored conservative social, economic and foreign policy. Neoconservatives favor an aggressive foreign policy which utilizes military power to spread American “democratic” values and only tacitly supports conservative social and cultural policies for politically expedient reasons, such as its embracing of the “values” of Protestant Evangelical's and like-minded neoconservative Catholics. It embraces large budgets particularly in the service of military spending in order to insure the ability to project American power abroad. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States) for further details; See also: Irving Kristol, “The Neo-Conservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is.” The Weekly Standard, Volume 008, Issue 47, August 8, 2003; Irving Kristol. Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. (New York: The Free Press, 1995) .
[2] Interestingly enough, neoconservative ideas now permeate both Democrat and Republican Parties and are promulgated by adherents of each. Thus irrespective of which Party controls Congress or the Executive Branch, neoconservative ideas prevail.
[3] See my “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” formerly at TCR http://www.tcrnews2.com/genworld.html now at Lulu.com.
[4] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
[5] J.P. Hubert MD FACS “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” at Lulu.com
[6] In contradistinction to paleoconservatives who while economically competitive had a basic historical commitment to the Judeo-Christian ethic, including fixed notions of right and wrong as well as fair-play.
[7] This is obviously incompatible with Catholic social teaching.
[8] This includes a proper balance between solidarity and subsidiarity as well as an equitable distribution of the world’s limited resources.
[9] Occasionally, neoconservatives propose initiatives which are compatible with Catholic teaching both in terms of solidarity and subsidiarity e.g. the Bush administration’s “Faith-Based Initiative.”
[10] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/; for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Life. [11] E.g. Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense now Head of the World Bank, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone. Other Bush administration officials who are sympathetic to neoconservative views include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This list is not exhaustive.
[12] Martin Heidegger, (1889-1976) was a German philosopher, who was one of the developers of existential phenomenology. He was a student of Edmund Husserl, studied Roman Catholic theology and then philosophy at the University of Freiburg, where he became the “founder” of phenomenology. Besides Husserl, Heidegger was especially influenced by the pre-Socratics (rather than Socrates, Plato or Aristotle), by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, and by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. For more information see: http://www.connect.net/ron/heid.html.
[13] Norman Podhoretz. Making It (New York, 1967), Breaking Ranks (New York, 1979), Ex-Friends (New York, 1999).
[14] Bacevich, Andrew J, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005), p. 71. [15] Ibid, p. 70.
[16] This view holds that Christ’s return does not occur until after the Jews (Israel) return to the “promised land” (1948 from their perspective). Purportedly, the eschatological clock is started after a peace treaty is made through the intercession of a powerful world leader (the anti-Christ) which insures the safety and security of the Jews. This begins a 7 year period the first half of which is a 3 ½ year period of “minor” tribulation. It is followed by the desecration of the newly rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem (by the anti-Christ who declares himself God on Earth). It requires that the Jews have effective control of Jerusalem in order to re-build the Jewish Temple in which this occurs. This explains why Evangelicals violently oppose any Israeli/Palestinian solution which deprives Israel of the Temple-mount in Jerusalem. The major period of distress the so-called major or Great Tribulation then continues for the last 3 ½ years until the battle of Armageddon and the literal return of Christ to the Earth after which HE initiates a literal/physical thousand year reign. This scenario is completely incompatible with Catholic teaching on eschatology which among other things denies that Christ will reign physically on earth for one thousand years after HIS glorious return.
[17] Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, 2005.
[18] Charles Krauthammer, “The Bush Doctrine,” Weekly Standard, June 4, 2001. [19] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 136.
[20] Ibid, pp. 69-96.
[21] See my “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? Available as a chapter in my above referenced book at Lulu.com, for a discussion of the Just War Doctrine and ethical implications.
[22] CCC # 2265 p.545 “Letitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” [This should not be taken to mean that citizens residing in a nation state are immune or exempt from a reasoned evaluation of the case for war which in itself would be an abdication of their own sacred responsibility to “do good and avoid evil.” In a representative democracy (Republic) the lack of requisite citizen support for war makes it effectively (practically) impossible for the authorities to carry out, JPHJ].
[23] Ibid.
[24] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available in my above referenced book at Lulu.com.
[25] Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005).
[26] See Mark and Louise Zwick, “Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected” Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XXIII, No. 4, July-August 2003; George Weigel, “The Just War Case for War” America, March 31, 2003; See for some earlier neoconservative writing by George Weigel, “On the Road to Isolationism?” Commentary 93 (January 1992).
[27] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available at Lulu.com as a chapter in my above referenced book.
[28] Note the British and American legal systems are both adversarial rather than Socratic where determining the “truth” is more a function of lawyerly competence then any mutual attempt to reason and arrive at the truth. Facts are what can be admitted into evidence as determined by the judge at the trial court level and become “fixed” as part of the “law of the case.” Courts of Appeals rarely review the original “facts” as they failed to do in the Schiavo case. This methodology is also seen in the debate format Television shows that have featured bi-polar shouting matches in which complex topics are reduced to bi-polar “sound-bites.”
[29] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 133.
[30] Ibid, p.134.
[31] Scripture includes only one example where it appears that Christ became "angry" and could have been perceived as non-peaceful (HIS response to the money-changers in HIS Father’s house).
[32] See John 8: 3-11 for Christ’s rejection of the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. At the time the letter of the Hebrew Law called for “stoning” the woman to death.