I just received Charles Curran's new book: Loyal Dissent: Memoirs of a Catholic Tradition. I read ch. 10, "My Relationship to the Catholic Church." (Yes, I usually start books at the beginning and will get to the rest of it). In the chapter, he discusses why he has stayed in the church despite being condemned by the "hierarchical magisterium" (he does not concede that he has been condemned by the church). You will recall that Gary Wills was on the verge of saying why he stays in the church, but somehow failed to do so. Hans Kung has many times explained why he has stayed in the church and those explanations have had an impact on me. I found Curran's discussion to be wise on many subjects including observations on dissent and on his approach to the priesthood, but I found particularly striking and eloquent his discussion of what it means to be a Catholic, the nature of the Catholic tradition, and why leaving the church is not even a choice for him.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
New book by Curran
Right to Unionize
One of the most consistent themes in CST, emphasized literally from the beginning, has been a ringing affirmation of the right of workers to organize themselves into unions.
In 1973, private sector unionization was 25%. In 1980, it was 20%. This past year, it dropped down to a new low of 7.8%. And successful organization drives are extremely rare, virtually ensuring that the number will continue to drop.
I suppose someone here will argue that perhaps unions are simply not as attractive to workers as they once were, or that the economy has changed since the mid-20th century in ways that have had the natural effect of reducing union membership. But, while these arguments may explain the general direction of the trend, it's hard to attribute the almost negligible level of unionization in the private workplace in this country to purely structural causes when one considers the situation in, say, Canada, where the rate of unionization in the private sector is significantly higher in a more or less identical economy.
Many commentators point to the unfavorable laws in this country requiring secret ballot votes in order to certify a union. The effect of requiring union elections has been to expose workers to protracted (and often coercive) employer campaigns against unionization. Republican policy makers have applauded the decline of unions and have demonstrated a relentless hostility towards unionization efforts. Needless to say, the fact that they have controlled the White House for all but 8 of the past 24 years means that their views have had some impact on labor policy.
All of this is to ask whether the argument can be made that this country and this administration (in actual practice if not in word) denies workers their fundamental right to organize. That is, it seems reasonable to me to understand CST as requiring more than mere lip service to the right to organize. It is not enough simply to affirm the right and to avoid direct state coercion of union organizers. As the CST documents make clear, the state has an affirmative duty to protect workers from even private coercion. At least in terms of the results of U.S. labor policy, I think it is apparent that we are falling short, and I think the blame rests largely (though not exclusively) with the party in power.
UPDATE: To be clear, in laying responsibility with the party in power, I am not making a claim that Republican policy caused the decline in union membership. My only causal assumption here is to assume that labor policy has something to do with the decline. I attribute responsibility to the Republicans only because they are the party in power (and therefore in a position to do something about the issue) and because they are, as an ideological matter, expressly hostile to unions.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Household Intimacy and the Law
Yale law prof Robert Ellickson has posted his new paper, Unpacking the Household: Informal Property Rights Around the Hearth. (HT: Solum) The abstract:
As Aristotle recognized in THE POLITICS, the household is an indispensable building block of social, economic, and political life. A liberal society grants its citizens far wider berth to arrange their households than to choose their familial and marital relationships. Legal commentators, however, have devoted far more attention to the family and to marriage than to the household as such.
To unpack the household, this Article applies transaction cost economics and sociological theory to interactions among household participants. It explores questions such as the structure of ownership of dwelling units, the scope of household production, and the governance of activities around the hearth. Drawing on a wide variety of historical and statistical sources, the Article contrasts conventional family-based households with arrangements in, among others, medieval English castles, Benedictine monasteries, and Israeli kibbutzim.
Most households involve several participants and as many as three distinct relationships - that among occupants, that among owners, and that between these two groups (the landlord-tenant relationship). Individuals, when structuring these home relationships, typically pursue a strategy of consorting with intimates. This facilitates informal coordination and greatly reduces the transaction costs of domestic interactions. Utopian critics, however, have sought to enlarge the scale of households, and some legal advocates have urged household members to write formal contracts and take disputes into court. These commentators fail to appreciate the great advantages, in the home setting, of informally associating with a few trustworthy intimates.
Rob
Dance Break
For far too long, the Catholic legal theory project has ignored the importance of liturgical dance. Consider this a desperate attempt to fill that void. (HT: Commonweal)
Rob
"Scare Tactics," cont'd
Commenting on Peter Steinfels' recent column, which asked whether "same-sex marriage will collide with religious liberty," Rob asks whether it is a "scare tactic" or a "prophetic insight" to call attention to the possibility of this collision. The Steinfels column, among other things, quotes Marc Stern -- who believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty "inevitable" -- as saying:
"No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them," Mr. Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have "substantial impact."
He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.
I wonder. According to this story in the Telegraph, under proposals being considered by the government in the United Kingdom, the Church of England could be "forced to bless gay weddings":
New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual "weddings" or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday.
It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.
The Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations will make discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation illegal in the same way as race or sex.
Here is a link to the government's "Consultation Paper." Professor Friedman, over at Religion Clause blog, is also discussing the proposals:
The Consultation Paper indicated that the government was proposing only limited exemptions for religious organizations. It said that exemptions should be limited to activities closely linked to religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith. It would not exempt social services offered by religious organizations, commercial activities, or services offered under government contracts.
As I (and others) have noted many times on this blog -- in the context of, among other things, the contraception-mandate and pharmacists'-conscience controversies -- it is not clear that religious freedom is well served by mandates with exemptions whose applicability depends on determinations by government officials that activities are, or are not, "closely linked to religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith."
"Sacred, Safe, and Busy"
Rob's link to Tim Keller's very interesting "urban Christian" essay provides an excuse to link to some thoughts by the lovely and talented Nicole Garnett, over at Prawfsblawg, about "healthy cities" as "sacred, safe, and busy" places. I'm also reminded of the work of MOJ-friend, Philip Bess, who writes about religion and the "new urbanism." Here are some reactions to Keller's post, over at the Acton Institute's blog. And, here is an announcement for what looks to be an interesting gathering, "Toward a Free and Virtuous City," sponsored by Acton.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Another Failed Everest Expedition . . .
Fr. Araujo's recent post about a disturbing sense of nonchalance among Mount Everest climbers was brought into stark relief by this report of the possibilities that emerge when human life is given priority over reaching the summit.
Rob
The Urban Christian
Tim Keller, pastor of Manhattan's "seeker-sensitive" Redeemer Presbyterian Church and arguably the most influential evangelical voice in New York City, has written an essay for Christianity Today emphasizing the importance of the urban Christian:
My first strategic point is simple: More Christians should live long-term in cities. Historians point out that by A.D. 300, the urban populations of the Roman Empire were largely Christian, while the countryside was pagan. (Indeed, the word pagan originally meant someone from the countryside—its use as a synonym for a non-Christian dates from this era.) The same was true during the first millennium A.D. in Europe—the cities were Christian, but the broad population across the countryside was pagan. The lesson from both eras is that when cities are Christian, even if the majority of the population is pagan, society is headed on a Christian trajectory. Why? As the city goes, so goes the culture. Cultural trends tend to be generated in the city and flow outward to the rest of society.
He also comes across sounding, well, Catholic:
It will not be enough for Christians to form a culture that runs counter to the values of the broader culture. Christians should be a community radically committed to the good of the city as a whole. We must move out to sacrificially serve the good of the whole human community, especially the poor. Revelation 21-22 makes it clear that the ultimate purpose of redemption is not to escape the material world, but to renew it. God's purpose is not only saving individuals, but also inaugurating a new world based on justice, peace, and love, not power, strife, and selfishness.
Rob
Scare Tactic or Prophetic Insight?
Peter Steinfels reports on the coming clash between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. He reports that U of Chicago law prof Cass Sunstein, asked whether a conservative Christian college would risk its tax-exempt status by refusing to admit a legally married gay couple to married-student housing, answered, "Sure — and if pigs had wings, they would fly," dismissing the idea as a scenario "generated by advocacy groups trying to scare people." Georgetown law prof Chai Feldblum forecasts significant conflict ahead, and believes that the only honest position is to admit that "we are in a zero-sum game in terms of moral values." Generally, in her view, the dignity/equality concerns of gays should outweigh religious freedom considerations, but the latter may weigh more heavily for religious institutions "geared just towards members of the faith" as opposed to those that interact broadly with the general public.
Rob
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
