Response to CLT Critics

Below is a response to Rick's post on critiques of the CLT mission from MOJ friend Gerald Russello:

1. The criticism that adding the modifier "Catholic" does not add anything to the range of positions would be applicable to any of the "critical X" approaches to law. Feminist legal theory, for example, at its best exposes the law's sometimes unwarranted presumptions of maleness where a female perspective should be included. CLT introduces the same element of critique: first, to show that legal doctrines may/may not be compatible with Catholic understandings; and also to show how they could be changed to so be compatible. The obvious objection is that some may not wish for doctrines to be changed, but that is a policy or legislative argument, not an argument against a body of scholarly inquiry.

2. Some of the critics seem to think that the Catholic tradition to external to that, say, of the common law. That is not so, and insofar as that syatem - with its assumptions about the indicvidual, the family, and the nature of obligations or promises, for example - remain constitutive parts of the legal system, reflections on the Catholic contribution to them can be helpful.

3. CLT is just a part of a broader social tradition. If law schools want to educate the whole person as a new professional, immersion in a comprehensive tradition would seem to be an appropriate mission for a Catholic law school. Does this mean that Catholic scholars/lawyers will advocate for positions seemingly at odds with majority understandings? Sure. But I don't see how that detracts from the mission of a Catholic law school qua law school. I don't hear many CLT scholars arguing against the federal rules of civil procedure or a standard first-year curriculum.