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.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

MOJ's Amy Uelmen on the "Church in Tension"

Here is a link to Amy's piece, Church in Tension, which will later appear in the print edition of Commonweal:  Click here.

 

Bainbridge on Pope Benedict

Our colleague Steve Bainbridge has posted an essay at TechCentralStation, focusing on (among other things) the "missionary work" before the new Pope.

Rick

O'Callaghan on Pope Benedict, Pieper, and Nietzsche

Notre Dame philosopher John O'Callaghan has posted some thoughts about Nietzsche and the coverage of Pope Benedict's election, and also about truth, freedom, abortion, and Josef Pieper.  John's post is detailed and eloquent; I cannot do it justice here.  I thought this passage of Cardinal Ratzinger's, which John quotes, was particularly challenging:

  “Ye shall be as gods." This promise is quite clearly behind modernity's radical demand for freedom. . . . [T]he implicit goal of all of modernity's struggles for freedom is to be at last like a god who depends on nothing and no one, and whose own freedom is not restricted by that of another.  Once we glimpse this hidden theological core of the radical will to freedom, we can also discern the fundamental error which still spreads its influence even where such radical conclusions are not directly willed or are even rejected.  To be totally free, without the competing freedom of others, without a "from" and a "for"-this desire presupposes not an image of God, but an idol. The primal error of such a radicalized will to freedom lies in the idea of a divinity conceived as a pure egoism. The god thought of in this way is not a God, but an idol. Indeed, it is the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil-the anti-God-because it harbors exactly the radical antithesis to the real God. The real God is by his very nature entirely being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Man, for his part, is God's image precisely insofar as the "from," "with," and "for" constitute the fundamental anthropological pattern.  Whenever there is an attempt to free ourselves from this pattern, we are not on our way to divinity, but to dehumanization, to the destruction of being itself through the destruction of the truth.  The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation (let us call the radicalisms of modernity by this name) is a rebellion against man's very being, a rebellion against truth, which consequently leads man-as Sartre penetratingly saw-into a self-contradictory existence which we call hell.

Rick

The Charlotte Wyatt case

Here is a story, from the BBC, about the latest ruling in the Charlotte Wyatt case:

A severely brain-damaged baby should be allowed to die if she stops breathing, a High Court judge has ruled. 

The parents of 18-month-old Charlotte Wyatt have lost their legal battle to overturn a court order allowing doctors not to resuscitate her. . . .

Passing the ruling [Judge] Hedley said: "I am quite clear that it would not be in Charlotte's best interests to die in the course of futile aggressive treatment."

He said that if she should stop breathing all treatment, except intubation and ventilation, would be in Charlotte's best interests, "but nothing further".

I'm not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me that this case might be different, in morally significant ways, from the Schiavo case.  On the one hand, I'm troubled by the apparent equation, in this news account, between "intubation" (which I assume refers to ANH?) and "ventilation"; on the other hand, it strikes me that to refrain from "aggressive futile treatment" is more like "letting die" than was the ending of nutrition and hydration in Schiavo.  Again, I'm not an expert here, so I'd welcome reactions or corrections.

Rick

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Pope John Paul II and Women

Thanks for Rick for the link to Lisa Schiltz's  essay, "Why Larry Summers Should Have Had the Pope Review his Draft: THe Implications of John Paul II's Teaching for Gender Balance at Caholic Universities."  The essay is much broader than the title suggests - addressing the role of women both within the family and in the workplace (and in the public sphere generally) and I greatly enjoyed reading it. 

While there is much that has come out of Rome in recent years that has been upsetting to women, there is, particularly in Mulieris Dignitatem, a recognition of feminine "genius" that has been given too little attention.  Professor Schiltz does a nice job exploring Pope John Paul II's statements about women and of the societal obligation to make it possible for women to respond to their callings both within the family and within the public sphere.

She does acknolwedge that "If there were no social evils left to be addressed in this world, clearly, John Paul's preference would be that every mother would choose to dedicate herself full time to child-raising, because no call to make the world a better place in any other way would ever be as compelling.  But we're not there yet; John Paul recognized that, and I think that is why he consistently called upon society to make it more feasible for women who are mothers to fully respond to all of the aspects of theri 'complicated calling,' both with repsect to their families, and in the public sphere."   

Conference on Philosophical Anthropology

This conference, "Philosophical Anthropology:  Reviewed and Renewed," hosted by the University of Notre Dame from May 6-9, looks very interesting.  Professor Charles Taylor will be delivering one of the keynote addresses.  Here is a full list of speakers.

Rick

Online Symposium: Schiltz on Larry Summers, John Paul II, and Gender Balance at Catholic Universities

My friend and former colleague, Lisa Schiltz, a law professor at St. Thomas, has contributed to our ongoing symposium on Pope John Paul II's jurisprudential legacy her essay, "Why Larry Summers Should Have Had the Pope Review His Draft:  The Implications of John Paul II's Teachings for Gender Balance at Catholic Universities."  Here is a taste:

One of the most puzzling things to me about the controversial remarks that the President of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, made this past January at the conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce was how someone so smart could have said such thoughtful things in such a clumsy and stupid way.  As a Yale graduate, of course, my first impulse was to seize the obvious explanation – maybe the President of Harvard just isn’t really that smart.  But that’s not really an explanation that would probably convince anyone outside of

New Haven

,

Connecticut

, so I quickly discarded that one.  My second thought was to muse a bit about the timing of the whole controversy.  The furor over President Summers’ comments erupted just around the same time that Pope John Paul II first was admitted to the hospital for the beginning of the respiratory difficulties that ultimately led to his death.   Of course, it turns out that Summers’ remarks had been made a month earlier and only started getting widespread attention about the time of John Paul’s hospitalization, but the coincidence of timing got me to thinking – would Pope John Paul II have agreed with President Summer’s remarks?   Or could Summers have avoided getting caught up in this controversy if he had passed a draft to the Pope, and gotten some comments, before he gave that infamous speech?

I am going to explain why I think that, if Summers had informed his talk with some ideas from the writings of John Paul about the role of women in the public sphere, he might, indeed, have avoided some of the firestorm in which he subsequently found himself, or at least blunted some of the reaction.  My interest in this topic, however, goes beyond either defending or attacking Summers and his comments.   Obviously, what Pope John Paul II said about the role of women in the public sphere is irrelevant to either Summers or to his institution.  However, these Church teachings should be of great relevance to Catholic universities, and, indeed, to all Catholic institutions that hire men and women.   I believe that John Paul’s teachings on the importance of the family and the role of women, both within the family and in the public sphere, if taken seriously by Catholic employers, should spur significant workplace restructuring to accommodate the needs of working parents – fathers and mothers – far beyond what is mandated by federal and state laws. . . .

A Catholic university that took seriously these teachings would look a little different most Catholic universities –  indeed, most universities –  generally look today.  Remember the two basic arguments.  First, the preservation of the family is crucial to solving many of contemporary society’s most critical problems, and the work of preserving the family – primarily the work of mothers – needs to be properly valued by society.   Second, women have unique contributions to make in solving many of contemporary society’s most critical problems, and women must have access to the public sphere in order to make these contributions.   Put these two together, and the Catholic universities should have no choice but to institute structures to accommodate working mothers. . . .

Rick

Reactions to the Election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the Papacy

I picked this up from today's Arts & Letters Daily, published by the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Just click on any of the nineteen items below to read:

From “Thank God!” to “Oh my God!” reactions to Pope Benedict XVI are rolling in from all over... Hans Küng ... Andrew Sullivan ... Michael Novak ... E.J. Dionne   ... Jack Miles ... Charles Moore ... Daniel Johnson ... Andrew Brown ... Julian Baggini    ... Charlotte Hays   ... Paul Vallely  ... Anne Applebaum        ... Derrick Jackson   ... Catherine Pepinster   ... Ruth Gledhill    ... Kenneth Woodward    ... Roger Kimball         ... German roundup    ... Ratzinger in WWII

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Michael Novak on Benedict XVI

For the full version of Michael Novak's article "Culture in Crisis," which appeared this morning (pre-election of Ratzinger) in National Review online, click here.

"What Ratzinger defends is not dogmatism against relativism. What he defends is not absolutism against relativism. These are false alternatives.

What Ratzinger attacks as relativism is the regulative principle that all thought is and must remain subjective. What he defends against such relativism is the contrary regulative principle, namely, that each human subject must continue to inquire incessantly, and to bow to the evidence of fact and reason.

The fact that we each see things differently does not imply that there is no truth. It implies, rather, that each of us may have a portion of the truth, and that in this or that matter some of us may hold more (or less) truth than others. Therefore, since each of us has only part of all the truth we seek, we must work hard together to discern in all things wherein lies the truth, and wherein the error.

Ratzinger wishes to defend the imperative of seeking the truth in all things, the imperative to follow the evidence. This imperative applies to daily life, to science, and to faith. The great Jewish and Christian name for God is connected to this imperative — one of the Creator’s names is Truth. Other related names are Light, and Way. Humans are made seekers after truth. …

But the fact of human “relativity” — that is, the fact that we each see things differently, or that the life-voyage of each of us is unique and inimitable — should not be transformed into an absolute moral principle. The fact of relativity does not logically lead to the principle of moral relativism.

No great, inspiring culture of the future can be built upon the moral principle of relativism. For at its bottom such a culture holds that nothing is better than anything else, and that all things are in themselves equally meaningless. Except for the fragments of faith (in progress, in compassion, in conscience, in hope) to which it still clings, illegitimately, such a culture teaches every one of its children that life is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

The culture of relativism invites its own destruction, both by its own internal incoherence and by its defenselessness against cultures of faith.

This is the bleak fate that Cardinal Ratzinger already sees looming before

Europe

. His fear is that this sickness of the soul will spread.

For Cardinal Ratzinger, moreover, it is not reason that offers a foundation for faith, but the opposite. Historically, it is Jewish and Christian faith in an intelligent and benevolent Creator that gave birth in the West to trust in reason, humanism, science, and progress, and carried the West far beyond the fatalistic limits of ancient

Greece

and

Rome

.

To the meaninglessness of relativism, Ratzinger counter poses respect for the distinctive, incommensurable image of God in every single human being, from the most helpless to the seemingly most powerful, together with a sense of our solidarity with one another in the bosom of our Creator. This fundamental vision of the immortal value both of the individual person and the whole human community in solidarity has been the motor-power, the spiritual dynamic overdrive, of an increasingly global (catholic) civilization.

That, at least, is the way he sees it. He is willing to argue out his case with all comers."

Who is Benedict XVI?

From the April 22d Commonweal:

Who is Benedict XVI?

What kind of pope do we have now?  Selections from the Commonweal archive on the subject of Joseph Ratzinger.

Who is Benedict XVI?
Joseph Komonchak reviews a recent biography of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Ratzinger for Pope?
Late last year, the editors speculated on the possibility of a Ratzinger papacy.

What are Ratzinger’s views on conscience?
By Sidney Callahan

What are Ratzinger’s views on women?
By Sidney Callahan