More on the Murray conference

Thanks much to Mark for his detailed post about Friday's John Courtney Murray conference at Villanova.  It was a treat to spend time in real-space conversations with so many MOJ folks, to hear and chat with Judge Noonan, to meet new people, etc.  Thanks also to Mark for his leadership and energy on this and so many other important matters.

For me, having Michael Baxter, Kathleen Brady, and Tom Berg -- who have written a lot and well on these matters -- in the group listening to my reflections on Murray, church autonomy, and the libertas ecclesiae principle was very helpful.

I hope that Tom Berg will post a version of his paper on Reinhold Neibuhr.

Kenneth Grasso gave a paper, "The 'fundamental ambiguity' of modern times:  John Courtney Murray on Catholicism, Modernity, and the American Proposition," that was particularly provocative, I thought.  Grasso argued (contra Baxter, perhaps?) that Murray was not as blind to those features of the American experience and founding that are in tension with Catholicism as many of Murray's friends and detractors have suggested.  That is, Grasso suggested, it is not really the case that Murray was under any cheerleader-type illusions about the providential nature of the American founding, or of America's constitution, or of contemporary liberal democracy.  In Grasso's telling, it is almost like Murray was a caricature of the Straussians, who have one message for public consumption and another for the elect.  It seemed to me that Grasso was contending that Murray's project was not a single-step one -- i.e., "show that America is providential and that Catholicism and American Democracy are compatible" -- but rather a two-step project of retrieval:  First, convince people to look to the founding, and to the authentic Western liberal tradition (as opposed to the Jacobin version of liberalism); second, emphasize (Berman-style) that the Western liberal tradition -- which the founders might not have got quite right -- really has its roots and foundation in the natural law tradition, the dignity of the human person, and the Freedom of the Church. 

Perhaps, if Professor Grasso is reading, he can tell us if I have this right.

I should also note that Susan Stabile provided a very clear and helpful explanation of how Murray -- given what we know of his role in the Massachusetts contraception debates -- would likely have approached the law-and-abortion matter.  That is, he would not have opposed regulating abortion on the ground that it was a matter of "private morality" -- he would clearly have thought it was a matter of "public morality" -- though he might nonetheless have had reservations about the wisdom of banning abortion.  (I suggested, in the Q & A, that whatever Murray's take on the "should abortion be banned?" question, he would -- I hope -- have supported overturning Roe, simply on rule-of-law and "it's better if people talk through hard problems" grounds.).