Star Trek, the Bishops and Drones

"But a 21st Century Catholic bishop said..."

Being a Trekkie (devotee of the Star Trek franchise) is at least vaguely similar to being a Catholic. Both groups display intense devotion to time-honored canons of stories, people, values and entire universes governed by laws and ancient wisdom.

And sometimes both of them raise questions about the morality of drone strikes.

Bp Pates: Drones are not logical for peace.

On May 17, Bishop Richard Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote letters to National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon and leaders in Congress, urging a public discussion on the use of drone strikes by the United States. Shortly thereafter, President Obama announced that his administration was tightening guidelines for drone strikes, with an apparent eye toward scaling back their use. A few days later, the Pakistan Taliban's second in command was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike. On June 4, Bishop Pates reiterated the moral questions raised by drone attacks in a piece on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog.

The end result hasn't been so much the public discussion Bishop Pates called for, so much as drones fleetingly returning to our collective attention before being brushed aside as "too complicated to think about" somewhere around the second cup of coffee. Fortunately, Bishop Pates hasn't been alone in raising these questions. The other voices, however, are aboard the Starship Enterprise at a multiplex near you.

(Minor spoilers ahead.)

J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek Into Darkness," released the same day as Bishop Pates' letter, finds Captain James T. Kirk (also from Iowa) and the Enterprise crew sent deep into space, to the edge of the Neutral Zone, to find a terrorist. The terrorist is hiding on the Klingon home world, Kronos, and while the Klingons are hostile to the Federation, they aren't technically at war. Star Fleet's solution: don't invade the Klingon world to catch this man. Simply take him out with these handy new torpedoes we've developed.

(It doesn't exactly take a stroke of foreign policy/storytelling genius to have words like "Pakistan" and "drone strikes" running through one's mind at this point.)

The order doesn't go down well with the crew. Mr. Spock raises the question of how it's moral to essentially assassinate a person without anything resembling a trial. Another crew member resigns over the issue of the Enterprise being used for combat purposes. Both objections resemble concerns raised by Bishop Pates about how drone strikes struggle to apply Just War requirements to actions outside of a war zone.

And while the Enterprise crew fears sparking a war with the Klingons, Bishop Pates talks more generally about how drones are not a recipe for lasting peace. "Targeted killings sow anger and unrest among the countless people whose lives are upended," he writes. "The use of attack drones should be inseparable from the question of whether it promotes peace and security around the world."

In the 2003 documentary "The Fog of War," former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (an architect of the Vietnam War) said "the human race needs to think more about killing." The new Star Trek movie provides a vision of a 23rd Century with people for whom the value of human life -- and the taking of  it -- is still a big deal. They have apparently had the discussion Bishop Pates calls for, given much thought to killing and found it immoral and, yes, illogical.

(CNS Photo/Paramount)

Six More Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate

1. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.”

2. The rule leaves open the possibility that even exempt “religious employers” will be forced to cover sterilization. In its August 2011 comments, USCCB warned that the narrow “religious employer” exemption appeared to provide no relief from the sterilization mandate—only the contraception mandate—and specifically sought clarification. (We also noted that a sterilization mandate exists in only one state, Vermont.) HHS provided no clarification, so the risk remains under the unchanged final rule.

3. The new “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. Also on Friday evening, HHS issued regulations describing the intention to develop more regulations that would apply the same mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that are still left out of the “religious employer” exemption. These policies will be developed over a one-year delay in enforcement, so if they turn out badly, their impact will not be felt until August 2013, well after the election.

4. Even if the promises of “accommodation” are fulfilled entirely, religious charities, schools, and hospitals will still be forced to violate their beliefs. If an employee of these second-class-citizen religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. There can be no additional cost to that employee, and the coverage is not a separate policy. By process of elimination, the funds to pay for that coverage must come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.

5. The “accommodation” does not even purport to help objecting insurers, for-profit religious employers, secular employers, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, USCCB identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Friday’s actions emphasize that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn, all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the “accommodation.”

6. Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the bishops are partisan. The bishops and their staff read regulations before evaluating them. The bishops did not pick this fight in an election year—others did. Bishops form their positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of every human person—not polls, personalities, or political parties. Bishops are duty bound to proclaim these principles, in and out of season.

Here are USCCB's first "six things" on the HHS mandate.

HHS Takes a Vietnam Turn

When Walter Cronkite spoke out against the Vietnam War during a February 1968 broadcast, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly bemoaned, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

That quote came to mind during this clip from last night's Hardball with Chris Matthews, in which Matthews gives his take on the HHS rule that would force Catholic hospitals, universities and social services to pay for contraceptives and other procedures contrary to Catholic teaching in their employee health plans.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

HHS Protects Kids in Vetoing FDA Plan B Decision

Health and Human Services (HHS) acted to protect kids Dec. 7 when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected a recommendation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to let stores sell powerful hormonal drugs to children over the counter.

Promoters of contraceptives immediately criticized this decision about Plan B-One Step, a morning-after pill and mega-dose of contraceptives, and by definition pretty strong medicine. To their mind, anything that curtails the maximum distribution of contraceptive even to minor children use must be wrong, common sense aside. The FDA wanted the medicine available over-the-counter to anyone who could get pregnant, which would include pre-teens. There seems to be no consideration that a medicine designed for adult women can have a completely different effect on a child. For example, adult anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs that may help adults with depression are known to create suicidal thoughts in teens.

The FDA plan was the Teva pharmaceutical company’s dream – their pills, which were not selling well as a prescription drug, would now be right up there on the shelf with meds for childhood illnesses like the common cold.

It is hard to imagine that any parent or teacher who ever has known an 11-year-old could disagree with the HHS decision. That’s true regardless of one’s view on the morality of contraception or one’s level of concern about the prospect that some of these drugs can serve as abortifacients. The Catholic Church has serious concerns about contraceptive use and doesn’t think Plan B is good for anybody, no secret there. But you don’t have to be a supporter of the church’s position to know that pushing Plan B to kids is wrong on many levels.

Childhood is a time of immaturity and making mistakes, but adults usually try to see that youthful missteps do not become fatal ones. There are 10-year-olds who can drive, but only the foolhardy would advocate their doing so. Such choices just don’t belong to children.

One would think that permitting kids to use their birthday money to buy meds without their parents’ or guardians’ knowledge would be beyond the pale. Clearly if a child is scared enough after having sex to worry about pregnancy, she also might be scared enough not to read the instructions on the box or the list of problems which might arise. In a child’s mind, if taking one pill might make the problem go away, taking two would be even better, and three would virtually guarantee the results being sought. Panicky kids also are apt to ignore the instructions about side effects, such as nausea, pain and bleeding, and the recommendation to contact a doctor if side effects occur.

Children also might miss the fact that if Plan B reduces chances of getting pregnant, it doesn’t wipe them out. The young, who can see themselves invulnerable, certainly can be easily misled into thinking Plan B is a free pass when engaging in risky behavior. Misinformation can have long-term consequences in this instance.

Teen pregnancy is a serious social problem but it is not one addressed by leading kids to think they can engage in “safe sex.” There is no such thing as safe sex for children. Plan B’s manufacturer admits its product does not prevent other serious problems such as AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases that come with irresponsible sexual activity. Would an anxiety-ridden child take time to read such a disclaimer? Would they have read the recent report in The New York Times that these drugs can actually increase the risk of contracting AIDS?

The move by Sebelius may be one of a mother who remembers when her children were 11. President Obama, father of teen and pre-teen daughters, referred to them when he defended Sibelius’s decision to media. There’s nothing like real experience to drive a message home.

After she announced her veto Sebelius was criticized for making a political decision which might please the Catholic vote. This decision would be more apt to please the parent and grandparent vote. People with pre-adolescent and adolescent children probably hope their offspring are not sexually active. They certainly hope they aren’t secretly self-medicating with anything as serious as Plan B.