Tuesday, April 12, 2005
For an excellent statement of the case against government's permitting physician-assisted suicide, see this piece by the diocesan theologian for Honolulu, delivered in a homily for the annual Red Mass in Honolulu at the start of the legislative season. I would provide a link to the piece, but I don't have a link. (Do any of you?)
Father Marc Alexander, The Problems With Physician-Assisted Suicide, 34 ORIGINS: CNS Documentary Service 676-680 (April 7, 2005).
As I walked to psychology class in the fall of my freshmen year in college, one of my classmates approached and asked if I had heard about the death of the Pope. I wondered where this person had been during the past month or so as I patiently explained that it had been over a month since the new Pope, John Paul I, had been elected. My classmate, of course, was correct…
In CCD my senior year of high school (just months before JPII’s election), we were exploring the topic of Jesus the political revolutionary, as we contrasted his approach to revolution with the approach taken by the Zealots. My freshmen year of college, I took two courses for credit at our Catholic Newman Center
With these sorts of experience providing the foundation for my Catholic intellectual life, John Paul II remained a distant figure in those early years of his pontificate. (It would be more than two decades, for instance, before I became acquainted with his early Wednesday Catechesis, which we now know as “The Theology of the Body”). Coming from a strong Democratic Catholic household, I had a more developed sense of social justice rooted in Catholic faith. And, my parents and pastors also provided the seeds for a good prayer life. These aspects of JPII’s ministry were, therefore, more readily accessible to me. But, I didn’t yet have any sense of how they all tied together. They were branches in search of fertile soil and thirsty for cool water.
During the 80’s, I was in a rush, finishing college in three years, law school, a clerkship, and the big firm life. Married in ’81, with children arriving in ’82, ’84, ’86, & ’88, I didn’t have (or didn’t take) much time to immerse myself in the writings and teaching of our Pope, although I did make it to a papal mass in San Antonio
Three events in the early 1990’s drew me closer and closer to the man history will know as John Paul the Great. First, my wife’s deepening prayer life and my feeble attempts to follow. In other words, I started taking the call to growth in holiness seriously. Second, UC Berkeley law professor, Phillip Johnson, taught me the importance of uncovering the philosophical assumptions underpinning any school of thought or line of reasoning. In other words, I started to see the need to pull all the strands of life together into a coherent whole. And, third, we moved to Oklahoma
All of this led me to John Paul II, and what a rich experience it has been. From a professional level (regarding the development of Catholic Legal Theory), he has provided me with more than enough material to work with in a career, and more importantly, he is indirectly responsible (I believe) for the expanding community of Catholic legal scholars. At this precarious point in the development of western civilization, he has provided us with the foundation for society’s renewal, rooted in the dignity of the human person and the person’s vocation as revealed in the mystery of Trinitarian Love (Self-Donation) as witnessed in the person and life of Jesus Christ.
While I am immensely thankful for the intellectual roots planted in my mind by Pope John Paul II, I am most grateful for his example of holiness, his deep and abiding love for God and neighbor, his committed prayer life, his undying sense of hope, his ability and willingness to dialogue with anyone, and his ability to teach absolute truth yet fully love those who had yet to respond to that truth. One of my favorite John Paul II stories, as told in George Weigel’s biography, “Witness to Hope,” is of the time Bishop Wojtyla called in a priest from an outlying parish for the purposes of reprimanding the young priest. After the chewing-out, the future JPII asked the priest to come pray with him before the Blessed Sacrament. After a long, long time (an hour or so) in which the priest was looking at his watch and contemplating the train he had to catch, Wojtyla got up and asked the young priest to hear his (Wojtyla’s) confession. To me, this one story says it all.
I was blessed to see him one last time as he waved from his window during Mass on Palm Sunday, less than two weeks before he died. My head knows it will come in time, but my heart crys “Santo Subito.” Thank you John Paul for teaching me to "be not afraid."
Monday, April 11, 2005
Thanks to Amy Welborn, for reminding me to post a link to MOJ-friend Steve Bainbridge's post, "The Conservative Case Against Wal-Mart." After a review of the data and facts, Steve quotes Russell Kirk:
All my life I have known the city of Detroit, called-during World War II "the arsenal of democracy." ... In the shocking decay of that great city nowadays, we behold the consequences of an inhumane economy-bent upon maximum productive efficiency, but heedless of personal order and public order. Henry Ford's assembly-line methods had much to do with the impersonality and monotony of Detroit's economic development; and so, in some degree, did Ford's concentration of his whole productive apparatus at the Rouge Plant; but of course Henry Ford had no notion, in the earlier years of his operation, of what might be the personal and social effects of his highly successful industrial establishment; nor did the other automobile manufacturers of Detroit. Indeed, they seem still to be ignorant of such unhappy consequences, or else indifferent to the consequences, so long as profits continue to be made. Consider the wiping out of Poletown through the unholy alliance of industrial, municipal, and ecclesiastical power structures, regardless of the rights and the wishes of Poletown's inhabitants-all to build on the site of Poletown a new industrial complex, which already, far from supplying the promised increase in tax revenues for Detroit, is involved in grave difficulties.
Steve continues:
Outside the most heavily urbanized areas, Wal-Mart typically builds on the edge of town, putting up a huge (and butt-ugly) big box building surrounded by acres of bare concrete parking lots. There are few sights in the American scene less attractive or appealing to the eye.
Kirk observed that "Detroit, during my own lifetime, has produced tremendous wealth in goods and services. But it has been a social failure. And so have nearly all of America's other major cities." I put it to you that Wal-Mart contributed to moving those failures into small town America by shuttering local business and creating huge barriers to entrepreneurial entry into fields traditionally the province of local small business men and women.
Being a conservative is supposed to be about things like tradition, community, and, yes, aesthetics. If I'm right about that, it's hard to see why a conservative should regard Wal-Mart as a societal force for good even if Hugh's right about the job story.
So what do we do? Well, we must strike a balance between respect for private property rights (see my Kelo post) and our other values. How? On the one hand, government should not legislate against Wal-Mart and its ilk. On the other hand, government should not subsidize Wal-Mart either through zoning or tax breaks. Wal-Mart’s a big boy, so to speak, who can take care of itself. We ought to let it compete in a free market. And those of us with a bully pulpit out to use it to encourage Wal-Mart to become a better neighbor and citizen.
A few months ago, I mentioned a recent paper, "Law Like Love," by ASU's Professor Jeffrie Murphy. Here, finally, is a link to the (wonderful) paper. Here is the abstract:
This lecture seeks to open a discussion of the question: What would law - particularly criminal law - be like if we regarded love (agape) as the first virtue of social and legal institutions? The lecture discusses punishment - including capital punishment - in a framework of love, and critically considers the claim frequently made that love-based forgiveness is inconsistent with capital punishment and perhaps with all punishment.
Murphy's paper seems particularly timely in light of the rich conversation we and other bloggers had a few weeks ago about punishment theory, love, desert, and suffering.
Rick
What I find most striking about Stanford's warning to students regarding religion is that this may be one of the last remaining areas in which universities feel comfortable acting in loco parentis. In other areas (sex and substance abuse, in particular), the college student is presumed to be a fully formed, independent actor, needing no boundaries or guidance. (For some insight, read Mary Ann Glendon's review of Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons or this Christianity Today column.)
Rob
According to this account, "a law school student group that requires members to pledge to adhere to Christian beliefs, including a prohibition against homosexuality, has sued Southern Illinois University for refusing to recognize the organization. . . . The revocation means the group can no longer use the university's facilities or name and is no longer eligible for school funding, according to the lawsuit. A university official said, however, the group can still use campus facilities."
Here is more:
"In revoking the group's status, Southern Illinois University cited violations of school policy that official student organizations must adhere to all federal and state nondiscrimination laws, the lawsuit says. A statement of faith that society members must vow to follow includes, among other prohibitions, "the Bible's prohibition of sexual conduct between persons of the same sex," the lawsuit says.
We have talked about this issue -- in the context of a dispute at Arizona State -- before. I'm not an expert on non-discrimination law, but it is not obvious to me that the CLS policy -- i.e., of requiring members to "follow" a "statement of faith" which includes a prohibition on "sexual conduct between persons of the same sex" -- would necessarily violate a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Presumably, the CLS would admit someone who was homosexual but who was willing to assent to the CLS "statement of faith"? Perhaps an MOJ reader who is more familiar with the CLS policy can clarify this for me?
Rick
In the course of looking into something having nothing to do with law-and-religion, I came across a web page, provided by Stanford University's Office for Religious Life, entitled "A Word of Warning." Here is the text:
A Word of Warning
Maintaining and nurturing your spiritual life during college and graduate school is one of the best ways to keep perspective on your studies and to avoid the isolation that is too often a part of scholarly pursuits. The Deans for Religious Life and members of SAR are committed to providing opportunities for spiritual growth, rewarding friendships and intellectual inquiry into matters of faith in a supportive environment.
Unfortunately, not every religious group has your best interests at heart. Groups to avoid have some or all of the following characteristics.
If you feel you are being pursued aggressively or manipulated by a group or leader, contact any of the Deans for Religious Life or call 723-1762.
Now, it strikes me as reasonable and appropriate for a private university to provide (perhaps) paternalistic guidance to students on all sorts of matters involving their "personal" lives, including involvement with religious groups and activities. (I would hope that a University's willingness to provide "warning[s]" to students about the dangers posed by some religions to "critical, independent thinking" would indicate a willingness to warn about similar dangers posed by, say, political or identity-related groups). I imagine that reasonable people will disagree about what, exactly, "counts" as "claim[ing] to possess the truth exclusively", or "[dis]courag[ing] critical, independent thinking," or a "totalitarian worldview", but put all that aside.
I wonder, would (or should) the First Amendment constrain the issuance by a state-run university of a "warning" like Stanford's? Or, approaching the matter from a broader, "religion and liberal democracy" perspective, or from a "Catholic legal theory" perspective, what should we think about this "warning"?
Rick
For those of us missing the thrill of picking the NCAA basketball tourney winners, here's a slightly different sort of pool. (Sense of humor required.)
Rob
Sunday, April 10, 2005
American victims of priest sexual abuse are planning to protest Cardinal Law's celebration of a mass honoring John Paul II. If I were in Rome, I think I'd be inclined to join them, as I have not been made aware of any persuasive explanation for the prominent role given to Law. I've heard talk of protocol, but if the Vatican could do away with the three hammer strikes to the forehead as the means by which to confirm a pope's death, couldn't the standard operating procedures have been altered just a bit in this context as well?
Rob
UPDATE: Over at The Seventh Age, Jason Adkins responds to my question:
[M]aybe allowing (and even compelling) Bernard Law to preach at one of these Masses may be of tremendous service to a Church that could learn from the mistakes of its past. Perhaps putting someone like Law in front of the cardinals could be a powerful lesson about what can happen when they are careless in the exercise of their authority, as well as the spiritual consequences that may ensue. It gives him the opportunity to share his prayerful reflections over the past couple of years since his exile in Rome with the rest of the College of Cardinals. Perhaps he has something powerful to teach and preach to his colleagues. I'm willling to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that the other cardinals may feel the same way. He has certainly been shamed and chastened and has had to think alot about his mistakes. This could be a real positive for the Church.
The reason I think this is a possibility is because by all accounts, Bernard Law is a very good man with an amazing record of pastoral accomplishment, commitment to justice, and personal humility who happened to both make some gross errors in judgment as well as be in the wrong place at the wrong time. To impart to him sheer evil, malfeasance and bad faith is just plain calumny and fails to deal with the complexity of the sex abuse crisis. No doubt that he feels miserable and truly sorry for everything that happened. But perhaps he was mired in a Church culture that relied on "experts" and other specialists who believed with a little treatment or a change of scenery, these problem priests would be cured. Acting in the context of the post-conciliar era and its stupid deference to "science" and experts in all fields from liturgy to psychology and pastoral care, and relying on the fads and trends of the time out of a supposed duty to empower the laity and the wisdom of the new scientist/psychologist priests of the modern world, the Church mired itself in a huge crisis. But to have gone against the grain and resisted this at the time would have been nothing short of heresy. Most of the same activists that are championing reform in the wake of the abuse crisis, are the same that sought and built a church culture that relied on the wisdom of the age rather than ageless wisdom.
So my point is, let's all step back, take a deep breath, and maybe consider that this might be a positive moment for the Church. The way I look at it is this has to be a profoundly penitential moment for Law. Having the responsibility of preaching to all of the cardinals after screwing up and dragging the Church through as much mud as it was because of his mistakes can be nothing but chastening. I suspect he will approach this opportunity with much humility, and serve as a very important cautionary tale as the cardinal electors ponder the successor of John Paul the Great.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of Jason's response (although I don't see how resisting the mindset that led to the sex abuse crisis would have been "nothing short of heresy"), and I hope, like Jason, that Cardinal Law uses the opportunity to impart his hard-earned lessons to his colleagues. But is this the most appropriate vehicle for those lessons to be imparted? Whether it's accurate or not, the general perception is that it is a huge honor to celebrate any of the nine masses. Coupled with the widespread belief that the Vatican did not treat the abuse crisis as seriously as it should have, the pedagogical value of Law's role is not the lasting impression to emerge from this episode. This is not to suggest that Law is evil, but simply that he showed a profound lack of judgment -- a lack of judgment that facilitated unspeakable crimes. Placing him in this role so soon after the scandal seems misguided. By way of clumsy analogy, Ken Lay may have learned a lot from the demise of Enron, and his industry colleagues may stand to gain much from his newfound wisdom and humility. But if Lay has something to teach executives, it should be as a straightforward lecture stripped of pretense and the trappings of honor, not as the keynote address at a Chamber of Commerce awards banquet.
Rob
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
