Nun, 83, faces ‘life’ sentence in US after nuclear protest

[Tsuwano]

What was an unjust law? Is it unjust to prohibit trespass and vandalism? That is the law she broke and that is what she is being tried for. Unless on can say that any person has a right to trespass and vandalize the property of another, as per the Golden Rule, then the law is just.

I do not know if what I see is a failure of logic or a failure of understanding English, but the section of the Catechism that is being quoted does not apply here. The section does not “oblige her to act”. It is a negative admonishment, not a positive one.

“

A person is **not **required to follow an unjust law. To turn this around as a mandate to act is not only a logic error, it is also vigilantism. I can’t kill an abortionist or burn down a drug store that sells contraception based on this. The nun cannot use this to justify her criminal activity.

That being said, I would hope that her age will play a mitigating role in her sentence.

I understand what you are saying and the relevant passages of the Catechism. At the same time, I disagree that sometimes an unjust law does not require action in order to subvert it. One cannot simply say I refuse to acknowledge an unjust law and do nothing to act against the injustice proceeding from the law and presume to be moral. It was against the law in Mississippi for people of color to swim at segregated beaches in Biloxi. They could have stayed on the beaches reserved for people of color, but that would have been to accept the legitimacy of the law and the injustice resulting from it. They felt compelled to act against the law by trespassing on the beaches (even though the beaches were considered private property) in order to focus attention on the injustice of it all. Were they correct? I think they were and I think they would be supported by the thinking of the Church. Christians who acted to save Jews in Nazi occupied Europe were acting against unjust laws. Abolitionists who risked their lives and fortunes to hide runaway slaves were acting against unjust laws. They were accused of stealing private property. There are many incidents in which acting against an unjust law (not just refusing to accept it) is very much in line with Christian theology and morality. Injustice is a mandate to act. Now the question isn’t really whether the sister had a mandate to act against injustice, but whether she was actually acting against an unjust law. That is where most disagreement lies.

 

[pnewton]

. It was against the law in Mississippi for people of color to swim at segregated beaches in Biloxi.

This is a good example. Those that protested were indeed supported by the teaching of the Church, but then they didn’t vandalize anyone’s property. However, one would have been equally moral if they simply chose not to go swimming. There was no moral mandate to swim. There were also many other avenues of legally opposing this unjust law.

Injustice is a mandate to act.

Injustice is not a mandate to act in a specific manner. Let us assume that the sister was morally correct in that the mere existence of radioactive material was immoral. She had many avenues of legal protest that would have been more effective. She did not have carte blanche to act to correct injustice. For example, she should not commit an immoral act to correct an injustice. I think that was where the brilliance of Martin Luther King is seen. He opposed injustice without committing injustice to others. The question is not whether nuclear weapons are unjust, but whether trespassing and vandalism is unjust. Without restraint, and in many ways, this nun is more like the rioters in LA following the Rodney King verdict than the bathers you mentioned. She destroyed property to make a point. They went swimming.

 

[Tsuwano]

This is a good example. Those that protested were indeed supported by the teaching of the Church, but then they didn’t vandalize anyone’s property. However, one would have been equally moral if they simply chose not to go swimming. There was no moral mandate to swim. There were also many other avenues of legally opposing this unjust law.

Injustice is not a mandate to act in a specific manner. Let us assume that the sister was morally correct in that the mere existence of radioactive material was immoral. She had many avenues of legal protest that would have been more effective. She did not have carte blanche to act to correct injustice. For example, she should not commit an immoral act to correct an injustice. I think that was where the brilliance of Martin Luther King is seen. He opposed injustice without committing injustice to others. The question is not whether nuclear weapons are unjust, but whether trespassing and vandalism is unjust. Without restraint, and in many ways, this nun is more like the rioters in LA following the Rodney King verdict than the bathers you mentioned. She destroyed property to make a point. They went swimming.

Yes, I think I am in general agreement with you here, except I would say that not all trespassing and vandalism can be considered unjust if the injustice of the law and its effects are overwhelming and immediate. I believe, for example, that a person would have been morally justified if he had damaged the rails leading to the German concentration camps. I believe the people in East Germany were justified in their efforts to destroy or vandalize the Berlin Wall, even though it was considered public property. Now, this raises the question of whether a pro life activist is justified in raiding a working abortion clinic to prevent business from taking place that day. I believe that person may be justified. I do not, however, believe the justification extends to the injuring of others. Personally, I think the sister’s acts of trespassing and vandalism of the nuclear weapon storage facility may be morally justified, though I do not think it is effective. We are also in a gray area because the law which protects the nuclear storage facilty is probably not an unjust law. Indeed, it may be a necessary law in order to prevent the weapons from falling into unsafe hands. The storage of these weapons, however, may be unjust.

 

[GEddie]

Yes, I think I am in general agreement with you here, except I would say that not all trespassing and vandalism can be considered unjust if the injustice of the law and its effects are overwhelming and immediate. I believe, for example, that a person would have been morally justified if he had damaged the rails leading to the German concentration camps. I believe the people in East Germany were justified in their efforts to destroy or vandalize the Berlin Wall, even though it was considered public property. Now, this raises the question of whether a pro life activist is justified in raiding a working abortion clinic to prevent business from taking place that day. I believe that person may be justified. I do not, however, believe the justification extends to the injuring of others. Personally, I think the sister’s acts of trespassing and vandalism of the nuclear weapon storage facility may be morally justified, though I do not think it is effective. We are also in a gray area because the law which protects the nuclear storage facilty is probably not an unjust law. Indeed, it may be a necessary law in order to prevent the weapons from falling into unsafe hands. The storage of these weapons, however, may be unjust.

Damaging the Berlin Wall was impossible from the eastern side, owing to minefields, machine gun nests, etc. The protest vandalism was done by those living on the West.

As to abortion: in 1987, college buddies of mine took to blockading local abortion facilities to try to deter abortions. They were arrested and charged with trespass, a law which is a priori, just, as it safeguards property rights. I heard that their legal defense would be based on a Texas law holding that trespass could be justifiable if defendant believed he was acting to save life. I do not know how the case ended.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Pax2u]

I agree that all life is sacred. I feel sure the sisters involved in the action above feel the same.

Again, speaking from only my own experiences…the sisters who were involved did NOT feel the same. Here’s hoping the one in the article referenced does.

 

[Orogeny]

Nonsense! Approaching the law without considering extenuating circumstances is to make an idol of the law. The law is not an end in itself. It is a means of acheiving justice. Locking up an 83 year old for life for the little harm she has done, does not bring about justice. It simply makes the law cruel.

Not nonsense at all because there are no extenuating circumstances in this case. She trespassed and committed acts of vandalism. She did not prevent the use of a nuclear weapon and she didn’t get rid of the uranium. She intentionally broke the law and apparently knew the possible consequences. She will get what she knew was possible, so it is not cruel in the least.

Peace

Tim

 

[april32010]

Damaging the Berlin Wall was impossible from the eastern side, owing to minefields, machine gun nests, etc. The protest vandalism was done by those living on the West.

As to abortion: in 1987, college buddies of mine took to blockading local abortion facilities to try to deter abortions. They were arrested and charged with trespass, a law which is a priori, just, as it safeguards property rights. I heard that their legal defense would be based on a Texas law holding that trespass could be justifiable if defendant believed he was acting to save life. I do not know how the case ended.

ICXC NIKA.

a law that strives to stop one from preventing an injustice isn’t a priori
just.one doesn’t have a right to commit an injustice.the Church has never held property rights to be inviolable .

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

 

[Havard]

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with you on this. I also think the point is lost on most people due to the nature of the act. I don’t necessarily think the sister’s actions are legitimate, but neither do I think we should simply ignore the reasons she is acting. Her actions are primarily theater. She is raising a question which I think is worth reflecting on. In addition, I don’t think any penalty given to her will pursuade her to refrain from her actions

I agree that all life is sacred. I feel sure the sisters involved in the action above feel the same.

Oh I don’t think a house arrest/locator is necessarily going to persuade her, it’s just a tool for the authorities to know where she is.

 

[manualman]

1. We must not do evil that good may come. It’s true that God permitted this evil for reasons best known to Him; but if you use this kind of logic, you might end up justifying the Holocaust or the Communist purges. (And it’s also arguable, as some historians have commented, that the real point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to send a message to Russia - and we all know what happened next.)
2. What other grounds are there for defending it?
3. None of us have to condemn people; we can only comment on actions. The final judgement of people is reserved to God.
4. The ends do not justify the means. And human history is far from over.

1. Yes, that’s the correct philosophical response. And it’s one I’d not feel too great about had I been president at the time and allowed the war to drag on another winter and later found out that hundreds of thousands of children and elderly died of starvation and exposure (no fuel for heating). Yes, we all know what happened as a result of that “message” being sent to the Soviets: in spite of radically opposing ideologies and massive armed forces in close proximity we somehow avoided getting into a direct shooting war with them for the remainder of their existence (almost 50 years).
2. Philosophically, none. Maybe it doesn’t bother you, but something about the entire civilian population of Japan being pushed to the brink of starvation by their own leadership does bother me somehow. Especially if I thought there might have been a means to avoid it that perhaps I just wasn’t smart enough to reason through philosophically.
3. Actions matter, but outcomes matter too.
4. You’re right that ends don’t justify the means. But war isn’t remotely rational or moral once unleashed. I doubt any war in history has ever or could ever be fought under completely just war conditions. The nature of the beast is simply demonic. I don’t think rationality or morality can completely address the horrors of war, which is why we need to work so hard to avoid them in the first place.

How does this all relate to the nun in question? Her assertion is that the very existence of these weapons is evil and an imminent threat to humanity. In a sense that true, but for the last 68 years that threat has been entirely theoretical. In short, the threat doesn’t remotely warrant the kind of civil disobedience committed here given the potential over-reactions by security forces and the subsequent risks to her own life or those of security personnel. She committed a real crime and it warrants modest punishment because it was a modest crime.

 

[Havard]

a law that strives to stop one from preventing an injustice isn’t a priori
just.one doesn’t have a right to commit an injustice.the Church has never held property rights to be inviolable .

That doesn’t answer anything though, it only raises more questions.

There are countless methods of dialogue and protest which do not trample on the rights of others. I hope you’ll agree that these methods should be used first, and that more extreme methods of protest are only a matter of more dire circumstances. So at what point is it justified to violate the rights of others? And specifically, where was that line crossed in this case?

 

[DaveBj]

Right. I do think the sentence was overkill. A few months, a year at my most heartless. But nine years in the federal lockup for vandalism? Completely excessive.

Where are you getting this? Did you read the thread? She hasn’t been sentenced yet – it’s been postponed, and is still a month away.

 

[april32010]

Damaging the Berlin Wall was impossible from the eastern side, owing to minefields, machine gun nests, etc. The protest vandalism was done by those living on the West.

As to abortion: in 1987, college buddies of mine took to blockading local abortion facilities to try to deter abortions. They were arrested and charged with trespass, a law which is a priori, just, as it safeguards property rights. I heard that their legal defense would be based on a Texas law holding that trespass could be justifiable if defendant believed he was acting to save life. I do not know how the case ended.

ICXC NIKA.

a law that strives to stop one from preventing an injustice isn’t a priori
just.one doesn’t have a right to commit an injustice.the Church has never held property rights to be inviolable .

That doesn’t answer anything though, it only raises more questions.

There are countless methods of dialogue and protest which do not trample on the rights of others. I hope you’ll agree that these methods should be used first, and that more extreme methods of protest are only a matter of more dire circumstances. So at what point is it justified to violate the rights of others? And specifically, where was that line crossed in this case?

my apologies,my post that you referenced was in response
to GEeddie’s regarding clinic blockades . and who’s rights were violated in regards to the sisters actions?

 

[Havard]

my apologies,my post that you referenced was in response
to GEeddie’s regarding clinic blockades . and who’s rights were violated in regards to the sisters actions?

B&W, the company that runs Y-12. They don’t own the site, but they undoubtedly own capitalized leasehold improvements, not to mention that they bear the costs of security, cleaning, and repairs & maintenance.

 

[Corki]

a law that strives to stop one from preventing an injustice isn’t a priori
just.one doesn’t have a right to commit an injustice.the Church has never held property rights to be inviolable .

But the Church **does **hold that just laws must be obeyed and this law is not unjust. The law does not “strive to stop one from preventing an injustice”. The law in question protects property from trespass and destruction by others. The fact that the law might protect the just and the unjust doesn’t make the law itself unjust.

It’s like free speech. Someone can go on the internet and say all manner of vile things about Catholics. His speech is protected even if his speech is ugly and offensive. His actions are unjust but the law that protects his speech is not.

And as for the civil rights era examples, those individuals defied the law in an attempt to get the law changed. Do we really want the laws that protect us from trespassers and vandals changed?

 

[april32010]

the Church strongly defends private property, although private ownership (whether on the individual or large-scale corporate business level) can never be separated from the obligation of its social use ( the concern about others and the community in the use of one’s property).

 

[pnewton]

my apologies,my post that you referenced was in response
to GEeddie’s regarding clinic blockades . and who’s rights were violated in regards to the sisters actions?

The taxpayers who have to foot the bill to repair the fence and clean the walls. This action takes money from others, like shop-lifting, is spread over all society. It is a basic moral tenet that one can never commit an immoral act, even for a greater moral good. I appreciate her desire to protest and stand up for the value of all life, but she should not have recklessly and without cause destroyed property.

 

[pnewton]

Oh I don’t think a house arrest/locator is necessarily going to persuade her, it’s just a tool for the authorities to know where she is.

At 83, house arrest is also a way to save tax dollars. I think it should be considered an option. If this was a Walmart that had been vandalized by some random elderly person, I assure you probation would be the most probable outcome.

 

[Havard]

The taxpayers who have to foot the bill to repair the fence and clean the walls. This action takes money from others, like shop-lifting, is spread over all society. It is a basic moral tenet that one can never commit an immoral act, even for a greater moral good. I appreciate her desire to protest and stand up for the value of all life, but she should not have recklessly and without cause destroyed property.

My guess is that B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) had to pay for the damage, as they have a long-term contract to run the facility. Not that that makes it any better.

At 83, house arrest is also a way to save tax dollars. I think it should be considered an option. If this was a Walmart that had been vandalized by some random elderly person, I assure you probation would be the most probable outcome.

Not to mention if I were her superior, I’d want to make sure she’s safe. Breaking into secure facilities that post signs explicitly warning of lethal force is dangerous at any age, but especially so for an octogenarian.

 

[Ridgerunner]

At 83, house arrest is also a way to save tax dollars. I think it should be considered an option.

Is there some reason why you would expect her to comply with house arrest? These kinds of political activists do this sort of thing precisely in order to get arrested. Being arrested is a badge of honor for them. They are hailed as “prophetic” within their own circles.

 

[adrift]

The taxpayers who have to foot the bill to repair the fence and clean the walls. This action takes money from others, like shop-lifting, is spread over all society. It is a basic moral tenet that one can never commit an immoral act, even for a greater moral good. I appreciate her desire to protest and stand up for the value of all life, but she should not have recklessly and without cause destroyed property.

A judge ordered Sister Megan Rice, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed (bohr-CHEE’ OH-bed’) to pay full restitution of nearly $53,000 for damaging the primary U.S. storehouse for bomb-grade uranium.