The Legality of Spying (Part 2)

The President contends that he placed the spy networks in place pursuant to the Constitutional authority afforded him as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. In times of war, the President has extraordinary powers and rightfully so. Decisions need to be made and the President should be the one making them. However, the President is operating under the misguided assumption that the Resolution signed by Congress was a declaration of war. Congress only gave the President the authority to do what was necessary in the fight against terrorism. However, the President needed to stay within the bounds set forth by the Constitution as Congress has no authority under these circumstances to grant the President the power to disregard the Constitutional safeguards provided to all.

Spying on the enemy is necessary for our security, but our spy agencies should not be let loose with carte blanche authority to intercept any and all communications within the United States that they deem appropriate to scrutinize. FISA has been on the books for almost thirty years. It has been around that long for a reason: to provide judicial oversight. If the President has the power as Commander-in-Chief to suspend the Bill of Rights, then there would be no need for such a law.

Selective Excommunication

Obedience to authority is necessary for an ordered society. Chaos would reign if the citizenry had the power to pick and choose among the lawful commands imposed upon them. For example, military personnel have a duty and obligation to immediately acquiesce with a lawful command. Likewise, we can’t take it upon ourselves to decide to ignore a red light merely because we feel inconvenienced .

Good laws and bad laws abound. While all laws and the authority associated with such are meant to be obeyed, true matters of conscience require us to sometimes disobey. The level of disobedience swings on the pendulum from extreme to subtle. The early English colonies disobeyed the king and waged war as an act of disobedience. Civil rights proponents engaged in acts of peaceful civil disobedience. Protestors of seemingly unjust wars demonstrated to challenge the authority of governmental actions.

The days of blind obedience are sheltered in an apathetic past. No longer can one accused of wrong doing simply submit a defense of following orders. While it appears that the tables have turned on governmental and corporate executives and more than a few who have mandated blind obedience of their subordinates are facing sanctions, disciplinary action against the underling for failing to obey is the norm.

Often the enforcement and the accompanying punishment is selective. For example, the St. Stanislaus fiasco. The Board of Directors of the parish refused to acquiesce to the demands of the Archbishop. The Archbishop removed the priests from the parish. The Archbishop imposed further religious sanctions against the Board. When the Board hired a priest willing to sacrifice all for his belief that the people of the parish needed a shepherd, the Archbishop gave notice to all involved that they were persona non grata and excommunicated. The Archbishop also made it clear and in no uncertain terms, that any of the faithful of the archdiocese attending a mass at St. Stanislaus Christmas Eve and partaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist. 2000 plus people attended and almost all were disobedient and received the Sacrament.

The Archbishop has repeatedly maintained that the sanctions imposed were not related to the issue of the assets of the parish, but the flagrant disregard for the authority of the Church. A power struggle over who has authority to demand obedience and who must obey the laws of the church. The priest in question , Fr. Marek Bozek, defied church authority and violated his vow of obedience. All priests take the vow of obedience and celibacy. But obedience is not simply carved in stone to suggest obedience to church authority. It is also implied as an obedience to God’s law. When members of the clergy sexually abuse members of the community who have been placed in their trust, they are disobedient to the laws of God and the church. When they breach their vow of celibacy, they are disobedient. Is this not a more serious form of disobedience than the issue of assets? Or the issue of giving comfort to a community without a shepherd? Yet, these priests never endured the pain of excommunication. They were shuffled off to other venues to continue their disobedience. And the youth who suffered the abuse were merely compliant, obedient to the demands of the priest. For who would have thought in those days of old, that a priest would coerce a youngster into engaging in a sexual act in the name of obedience, blind obedience.

The harshest punishment of the church, excommunication, was selectively handed down in this case over an ego trip.