Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Body, Soul, and Moral Anthropology in Today's Times

Today's NYT features a short piece by Yale's Paul Bloom on, among other things, "the great conflict between science and religion in the last century"; "the conclusion that our souls are flesh"; our "mistaken" "common-sense dualis[m]"; and the "scientific view of mental life."

Bloom's opening paragraph is consonant with many of the discussions we've had here on MOJ:

What people think about many of the big issues that will be discussed in the next two months - like gay marriage, stem-cell research and the role of religion in public life - is intimately related to their views on human nature. And while there may be differences between Republicans and Democrats, one fundamental assumption is accepted by almost everyone. This would be reassuring - if science didn't tell us that this assumption is mistaken.

In Bloom's view, most people today -- and, in particular, religious people -- embrace a comforting but indefensible "dualism", believing that "bodies and souls [are] separate." Bloom quotes the President's Council on Bioethics report of December 2003, "Being Human": "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)."

This is all wrong, says Bloom. "The qualities of mental life that we associate with souls are purely corporeal; they emerge from biochemical processes in the brain. . . . As the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker points out, the qualities that we are most interested in from a moral standpoint - consciousness and the capacity to experience pain - result from brain processes that emerge gradually in both development and evolution. There is no moment at which a soulless body becomes an ensouled one, and so scientific research cannot provide objective answers to the questions that matter the most to us."

The correct view of mental life, Bloom insists, can only overpower religion:

The conclusion that our souls are flesh is profoundly troubling to many, as it clashes with the notion that the soul survives the death of the body. It is a much harder pill to swallow than evolution, then, and might be impossible to reconcile with many religious views. Pope John Paul II was clear about this, conceding our bodies may have evolved, but that theories which "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

This clash is not going to be easily resolved. The great conflict between science and religion in the last century was over evolutionary biology. In this century, it will be over psychology, and the stakes are nothing less than our souls.

Bloom is right in this, I think: The stakes are very high.

Rick

UPDATE: MOJ reader Matthew Festa was unimpressed with Bloom's essay, and urges us to read Edward Oakes's 1998 First Things article, "The Blind Programmer", taking on Steven Pinker. Festa also suggests (wisely, in my view) that those inclined to embrace Bloom's claims concerning the centrality of "dualism" to religious faith might benefit from a study of Aquinas's psychology.

Thursday, September 9, 2004

The Presumptions of Locke v. Davey

Brian Britt, a religious studies professor at Virginia Tech, has written a short essay for the Martin Marty Center's "Sightings" series questioning the wisdom of Locke v. Davey. Much of the essay covers what is undoubtedly familiar ground for most MoJ readers, but he offers an interesting additional perspective with his conclusion that "by upholding the law withholding scholarships from theology students, the Supreme Court has done more than assuage civil libertarians; it has reinforced the confusion between religious study and practice and perpetuated the caricature of higher education as vocational training."

Rob

Using Religion to Promote Corporate Responsibility

My colleague Susan Stabile has posted her article, Using Religion to Promote Corporate Responsibility, on the new group blog "Biz Fems Speak!" (It's a blog of women corporate law academics.)

Rob

Beyond the Rules

What do debates over the Church teaching on the death penalty, the communion controversy, and legal ethics students struggling with the implications of Enron all have in common?

Last night here at Fordham as part of our Catholic Lawyers' Program we kicked off our three-part series “Catholics & the Death Penalty” series with a discussion about the lawyers' roles - featuring Kings County DA Charles J. Hynes and the New York Capital Defender, Kevin Doyle. As Hynes has in some cases sought the death penalty, and Doyle is an outspoken opponent – and both are devoutly Catholic - I had anticipated something of a debate. Instead, they agreed, in large part, that the death penalty is bad policy and a waste of resources. Where they differed – and this was fascinating – was in how they thought about religion’s application to their professional life. Hynes’ principle reason for not applying recent Church reflections on the death penalty? The Pope’s statements haven’t been clear enough – they leave, in some sense, a “loophole” for “rare” cases. He’s waiting for a clear pronouncement of a hard and fast rule.

Similarly, I think much of the communion controversy debates have had a similar focus – on the “floor” of what crosses the line into mortal sin. Even those who respond with “single issue” concerns (eg, why peg just abortion?) are also prone to this – the focus is still on defining the negative rules.

All of this brought me back to conversations two years ago with my large legal ethics class. As they attempted to sort through the implications of Enron, what struck me was their focus on the line which is not to be crossed – and their apparent sense that as advocates they have an obligation to dance as close as possible to that line so as to obtain the maximum benefit for their clients.

Thinking about the task before us – that of developing “Catholic legal theory” – I used to think that the linchpin was simply to get folks to become familiar with the documents of Catholic Social Thought, and the implications would be evident, or would at least get a conversation going. Now I’m beginning to think that the even more challenging task is to get folks to move beyond a negative-rule-oriented lens which is focused largely on how to avoid sin (or a violation of the rules) toward some appreciation of the much larger, more positive, and certainly more constructive vision of how we can cooperate with God’s plans for humanity.

The task is formidable – and made harder by the fact that our case law and our culture are prone to define religion as another set of rule-based obligations to fulfill. (eg, take a look at the fascinating Second Circuit opinion in Seeger, 326 F.2d 846 – defining religion as “bowing to external commands”).

This is not to say that rules are not important, and that the Bishops are not right to point out what does cross the line into sinful material cooperation with evil. But if the general conversation stays there, don’t we risk losing sight of the much larger endeavor to which our faith calls us? If we’re constantly looking at the “floor” we may never even glimpse that “heaven and earth are full of your glory,” as we say in every mass.

Amy

Wednesday, September 8, 2004

More on Beslan's Children

[I thought that this piece, from today's New York Times, would be of interest.]

September 8, 2004
School Siege in Russia Sparks Self-Criticism in Arab World
By JOHN KIFNER

BEIRUT, Sept 8 — The brutal school siege in Russia, with hundreds of children dead and wounded, has sparked an unusual round of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim and Arab world.

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched Al-Arabiya satellite television station wrote in one of the most striking of these commentaries.

Writing in the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, Mr. Rashed said it was "shameful and degrading" that not only were the Beslan hijackers Muslims, but also the murderers of Nepalese workers in Iraq, the attackers of residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar, Saudi Arabia, the women believed to have blown up two Russian airplanes last week and Osama bin Laden himself.

"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable `achievement.' Does this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?"

Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.

"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious Sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"

Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a "haven" of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.

"Then came the Neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."

A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheikh Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage-taking and murder."

In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement today saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.

"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.

Writing in the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour, a columnist, Bater Wardam, noted a propensity in the Arab world to "place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case."

"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and murdered civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.

"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic causes. Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."

In Beirut, Rami G. Khouri wrote in the Daily Star that while most Arabs "identified strongly and willingly" with armed Palestinian or Lebanese guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation, "all of us today are dehumanized and brutalized by the images of Arabs kidnapping and beheading foreign hostages."

Calling for a global strategy to reduce terror, he traced what he called "this ugly trek" in the Arab world to "the home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has increasingly plagued many of our young men and women."

A Palestinian columnist, Hassan al-Batal, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Ayyam that the "day of horror in the school" should be designated an international day for the condemnation of terrorism. "There are no mitigating circumstances for the inhuman horror and the height of barbarism" at the school, he wrote.

In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al-Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."

In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government — which finds itself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists — were even more scathing.

Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote that "the propagandists of Jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.

"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people. They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people," he wrote, adding:

"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they abducted innocent children. This is the true Jihad these days and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims, towards our monotheistic religion."

Beslan's Children

I've been reluctant to blog about the massacre of the children in Beslan, as there seems to be very little insight that can be brought to such a horror. Get Religion, though, has two helpful posts: one on the media's approach to the religious dimension of the massacre, and one on an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury reconciling faith in God with such unspeakable human suffering.

The massacre undoubtedly represents the most serious challenge to our belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. It's not a new challenge, of course. Ivan, from Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, famously indicts God on behalf of all suffering children, including Beslan's:

This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones!

Certainly an emphasis on free will is intellectually essential in constructing a response, if not emotionally satisfying. In that regard, I prefer the work of Boston College philosophy professor Peter Kreeft, whose Making Sense Out of Suffering is one of the most helpful and accessible attempts to reconcile Christian faith with the reality of our existence. It centers, as any meaningful response must, on the Incarnation, which does not mitigate or justify the suffering of Beslan's children, but insists that they have not suffered alone.

Rob

The New Atlantis

The New Atlantis, "A Journal of Technology and Society," is now online. The currrent issue includes interesting pieces by Jeffrey Rosen and David Hart on obscenity, Gilbert Meilaender on stem-cell research, and Thomas Hibbs on popular culture in "anxious times."

Rick

Ratzinger on Catholic voters

The Washington Post reports today that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy, has given Roman Catholic voters leeway under certain circumstances to vote for politicians who support abortion rights." Here are a few interesting paragraphs:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," wrote Ratzinger, who is head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department charged with ensuring fidelity to church teachings

But Ratzinger added: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for McCarrick, said Ratzinger's statement means that "a Catholic can never vote for a candidate precisely because the candidate supports abortion."

"However, there could be circumstances where a voter, bearing in mind the primacy of the life issue, supports the candidate for other serious reasons," she said. "Each Catholic is called to consider these issues from a faith perspective and to weigh the candidates' positions very carefully before voting."

Rick

Giuliani honored by Catholic hospital

A few days ago, Rob raised the question whether some pro-life Catholics apply a double standard to politicians, by coming down harder on pro-abortion-rights Democrats than on Republicans with the same views. The New York Times recently ran this article, describing the controversy over a plan to name a new trauma center at St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan after Rudy Giuliani (who not only supports abortion rights, but also public funding for abortion). The article quotes the following language from the bishops' recent statement, "Catholics in Political Life":

"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

Apparently, "a spokesman for the bishops conference, David Early, declined to comment on whether the naming of the St. Vincent's center violated the bishops' policy, but he said they were aiming mainly at Catholic campuses in the document." This prompted a response from Fr. Reese, of America magazine:

"They can name a hospital wing after him, but he can't give a commencement address or get an honorary degrees?" he said. "This makes perfect sense!"

Father Reese said the naming of the wing "raises serious questions about the consistency of the bishops' policy."

Rick

Another court invalidates partial-birth-abortion ban

"A federal judge on Wednesday ruled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it does not include exceptions when a woman's health is in danger.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln followed similar decisions earlier in two other cases."

Here is a link to the AP story. Here (thanks to Howard Bashman) is a link to the court's nearly-500-page-long opinion.

Rick