(Note: This is the last column in the series.)

Pope Benedict XVI said in 2005, "Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism." To conclude this series of papers, I will say that Sean Hannity's political ideology unconsciously demonstrates a new form of totalitarianism which defines right and wrong in an artificially narrow sense; regards national security as the greatest good, elevating it above human rights and the law of God; accepts the coexistence of American big government, big business, and a swollen military to achieve the objective of national security; blends sin and sinners into a single homogeneous mass that must be defeated to preserve our national security; and intolerantly refuses to admit into its framework any clear facts that contradict its methods or call into question its objectives.

Mr. Hannity: "We would be foolish to assume there is any quick fix, any single solution, to the challenges America will face in the continuing battle with our terrorist foes. But keep in mind that the Cold War was a marathon as well, lasting some fifty years." (p. 276)

Mr. Hannity: "We are at war." (p. 219)

Mr. Hannity: "I'm no opponent of open and honest debate, even over questions of foreign policy...I would never claim that an earnest difference of opinion about foreign policy is unpatriotic....But when it comes to debate during wartime, I think one principle is clear: The only responsible argument is one that's made in good faith. The Democrats have violated that principle." (pp. 214-215)

Mr. Hannity: Yasser Arafat was an "evil actor" (p. 192), "the oldest terrorist" (p. 127).

Mr. Hannity: "The Bush administration's assessment of the challenges we face from terrorists, and their state sponsors, is serious, thoughtful, and realistic. The antiwar activists of the Democratic left, on the other hand, have expressed a vision that is naïve at best, dangerously out of touch at worst." (p. 177)

My response: Serious and thoughtful the president's picture may be, but to call it realistic is utterly absurd. President Bush claims that terrorists are consumed with unconditional hatred for America and everything good it stands for, and that thus we have no choice but to wipe them off the face of the earth. In the president's mind, Islamic terrorists are portrayed as sub-human agents of the devil, and given up for hopeless because we cannot do anything to change their evil plans. This is not just unrealistic, it is defeatist.

Mr. Hannity: Saddam Hussein was an evil outlaw, a cruel tyrant who deserves death.

My response: News of the evil character of Saddam Hussein has been greatly exaggerated. Hussein did flaunt the UN by refusing weapons inspectors entry into some parts of Iraq between 1987 and 1991 and between 1998 and 2002. He invaded Kuwait in 1990, and a few dishonorable troops in his army butchered scores of innocent people during that invasion. He unquestionably ran a tight ship of the central Mideast country, denying the Iraqi people many freedoms we take for granted and executing thousands of political dissidents. And when some treasonous Kurds and revolutionary Shiites plotted to overthrow Saddam's government in the 1980s, he overreacted by killing 175,000 people, most of whom were innocent.

Mr. Hannity: In the age of international "Islamic" terrorism, preemptive war can sometimes be justified and even necessary to protect our country. (pp. 154-55)

My response: In fact, the Catholic Church imposes very strict conditions even for normal defensive war, including the danger of a certain, imminent attack with lasting and grave consequences. The Church's just war doctrine is based on a presumption against the use of force. Despite the fact that the Church has no definitive teaching on the morality of preemptive war, it does not admit that such a war could ever be necessary. A large majority of Church leaders around the world have condemned preemptive war as in their view unjust and immoral. When talk of a preemptive strike on Iraq was flying around some years ago, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated several times: "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

(NOTE: I apologize for my recent extended delay in publishing this weekly column series. I was on Easter break the 25th and was busy with other matters on the 11th and 18th. I can assure you this lengthy delay was unintentional.)

Mr. Hannity: America's strength does not intimidate other nations. (p. 142)

My response: The United States is the most powerful nation on earth. Since we attained that status in the twentieth century, the rulers of this country have had the capacity to use that strength for good or for evil. In the 1900s we used our military might and economic prowess a number of times to defend weaker countries and assist poorer countries. World War II saved Europe from Nazi aggression, while the Korean and Vietnam Wars attempted to halt Communist advances. Our Marshall Plan helped Europe rebuild its economy after World War II; our Berlin airlift prevented tens of thousands of East Germans from starving to death.

Mr. Hannity: The new appeasers claim that UN (United Nations) authorization is needed for war. (pp. 139-140)

Mr. Hannity: The September 11 attack was "an attempt to decapitate our government." (p. 131)

(NOTE: This column No. 14 is the logical crux of my disagreement with Sean Hannity in this series. It explains that, since terrorism cannot be subdued by overwhelming military force, the "War on Terrorism" is unjust, illogical and defies common sense. Recognizing and addressing the popular grievances that fuel and encourage terrorist crimes--in other words, getting to the heart of the matter--is necessary for a genuine eradication of terrorism.)

Mr. Hannity: Although Shah Pahlavi "led an often oppressive regime...our alliance [with him was]...strategically crucial". (p. 89)

My response: Here we observe two related ideas: the law of the balance of power and the principle of the lesser of two evils. Thruout history, nations have tended to collect into various loose federations in order to increase their security against an aggressive nation or to balance out one another's power. Through such politics, nations strove to preserve international harmony and to correct disharmonies and divisions. The principle of the lesser of two evils holds that a state party can side with a second state party which is generating or promoting certain evils for the purpose of mutually counteracting a third state party which is generating or promoting even worse evils.

Mr. Hannity: "Liberals," including US Catholic bishops, reproachfully stirred up millions of people to join nuclear freeze demonstrations in the early 1980s. (p. 76)

My response: Some brief background on this issue might help clarify the discussion. Early in the Cold War, American administrations pursued a strategic, offensive-defense security doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The idea was for the US to maintain "strategic parity" with the Soviet Union --that is, a balance among number, power, sophistication and readiness of atomic bombs such that neither country would dare to start a nuclear war against the other thanks to fear of equally destructive retaliation by the adversary. Except for a temporary challenge during President John F. Kennedy's administration, which began courageously downsizing America's nuclear arsenal, the MAD doctrine more or less continued to guide American nuclear policy through containment to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) of the 1970s, which aimed to mutually reduce US and Soviet nuclear forces. The acronym of MAD was quite appropriate; this delicate policy was truly insane, as it could not be continued for long without leading eventually to a global nuclear disaster.

Mr. Hannity: "Monarchism, National Socialism, fascism, communism--all these forms of authoritarianism are illegitimate and inherently unjust." (pp. 10-11)

My response: I agree that National Socialism (Nazism) and communism are not legitimate forms of government because of their innate injustice. In different ways, both ideologies degrade the humanity of a people--Nazism through the elevation of society to godlike status, communism through the reduction of persons to mere cogs in the machinery of state. By eliminating socially "inferior" citizens, including Jews, Catholics, the mentally ill, and the handicapped, the racist and eugenicist Nazis worked to create a "master race" hoping to restore Germany's past glory. Communism is a collectivist system of government in which the state controls and regulates all the details of the ordinary lives of its citizens. While attempting to ensure the material security of all the citizens, it strips the individual person of his freedom--to worship God as he chooses, to purchase goods or property, to raise a family without interference, to determine his job, hours, or wage, to freely assemble with other citizens, to obtain a fair trial, or to criticize government policy.