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.

Monday, October 9, 2006

The Amish, forgiveness, and righteous anger

By Rick Garnett

A week ago today, Charles Carl Roberts took 10 young girls hostage, tied them up, shot them, and then killed himself.  Five of the girls -- all of whom were Amish -- were killed.  Apparently, two of the older girls asked to be shot first, in an effort to increase the chances of escape or survival for the younger girls.

Although the news-beast has been largely content with its Foley-scandal diet, there have been a number of editorials, stories, and blog posts on Amish beliefs (for example, here, here, here, and here), and on how they are helping members of the girls' communities not only to cope with the horror of the girls' murders, but also to forgive their murderer.  CNN reported:

A grieving grandfather told young relatives not to hate the gunman who killed five girls in an Amish schoolhouse massacre, a pastor said on Wednesday.

"As we were standing next to the body of this 13-year-old girl, the grandfather was tutoring the young boys, he was making a point, just saying to the family, 'We must not think evil of this man,' " the Rev. Robert Schenck told CNN.

"It was one of the most touching things I have seen in 25 years of Christian ministry."

Rod Dreher, of the Dallas Morning News and the "Crunchy Cons" blog, had this column on Friday:

Is there any place on earth that more bespeaks peace, restfulness and sanctuary from the demons of modern life than a one-room Amish schoolhouse? That fact is no doubt why so many of us felt so defiled – there is no more precise word – by news of the mass murders that took place there this week. If you're not safe in an Amish schoolhouse ... And yet, as unspeakable as those killings were, they were not the most shocking news to come out of Lancaster County this week.

No, that would be the revelation that the Amish community, which buried five of its little girls this week, is collecting money to help the widow and children of Charles Carl Roberts IV, the man who executed their own children before taking his own life. A serene Amish midwife told NBC News on Tuesday that this is normal for them. It's what Jesus would have them do.

"This is imitation of Christ at its most naked," journalist Tom Shachtman, who has chronicled Amish life, told The New York Times . "If anybody is going to turn the other cheek in our society, it's going to be the Amish. I don't want to denigrate anybody else who says they're imitating Christ, but the Amish walk the walk as much as they talk the talk."

I don't know about you, but that kind of faith is beyond comprehension. I'm the kind of guy who will curse under my breath at the jerk who cuts me off in traffic on the way home from church. And look at those humble farmers, putting Christians like me to shame.

It is not that the Amish are Anabaptist hobbits, living a pure pastoral life uncorrupted by the evils of modernity. So much of the coverage of the massacre has dwelled on the "innocence lost" aspect, but I doubt that the Amish would agree. They have their own sins and tragedies. Nobody who lives in a small town can live under the illusion that it is a haven from evil. To paraphrase gulag survivor Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the line between good and evil does not run along the boundaries of Lancaster County, but through every human heart.

What sets hearts apart is how they deal with sins and tragedies. In his suicide note, Mr. Roberts said one reason he did what he did was out of anger at God for the death of his infant daughter in 1997. Wouldn't any parent wonder why God allowed that to happen? Mr. Roberts held onto his hatred, purifying it under pressure until it exploded in an act of infamy. That's one way to deal with anger.

Another is the Amish way. If Mr. Roberts' rage at God over the death of his baby girl was in some sense understandable, how much more comprehensible would be the rage of those Amish mothers and fathers whose children perished by his hand? Had my child suffered and died that way, I cannot imagine what would have become of me, for all my pretenses of piety. And yet, the Amish do not rage. They do not return evil for evil. In fact, they embody peace and love beyond all human understanding.

In our time, religion makes the front pages usually in the ghastliest ways. In the name of God, the faithful fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up to murder the innocent, burn down rival houses of worship, insult and condemn and cry out to heaven for vengeance. The wicked Rev. Fred Phelps and his crazy brood of fundamentalist vipers even planned to protest at the Amish children's funeral, until Dallas-based radio talker Mike Gallagher, bless him, gave them an hour of his program if they would only let those poor people bury their dead in peace.

But sometimes, faith helps ordinary men and women do the humanly impossible: to forgive, to love, to heal and to redeem. It makes no sense. It is the most sensible thing in the world. The Amish have turned this occasion of spectacular evil into a bright witness to hope. Despite everything, a light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

Dreher is right, of course, that the ability of the Amish "to forgive, to love, to heal, and to redeem" is inspiring and humbling.  (Here is a blog post of his on the same subject.)  At the same time, I have to admit to mixed feelings with respect to the question whether we should all react, or even want to react, as the Amish are reacting.  Consider this, from the conservative editorialist Jeff Jacoby ("Undeserved Forgiveness"):

I can't deny that it is deeply affecting to see how seriously the Amish strive to heed Jesus' admonition to return good for evil and turn the other cheek. For many Christians, the Amish determination to forgive their daughters' murder is awe-inspiring. In his Beliefnet blog, the eloquent Rod Dreher marvels at CNN's story of the Amish grandfather. ``Could you do that?" he writes. ``Could you stand over the body of a dead child and tell the young not to hate her killer? I could not. Please, God, make me into the sort of man who could."

But hatred is not always wrong, and forgiveness is not always deserved. I admire the Amish villagers' resolve to live up to their Christian ideals even amid heartbreak, but how many of us would really want to live in a society in which no one gets angry when children are slaughtered? In which even the most horrific acts of cruelty were always and instantly forgiven? There is a time to love and a time to hate, Ecclesiastes teaches. If anything deserves to be hated, surely it is the pitiless murder of innocents.

To voluntarily forgive those who have hurt you is beautiful and praiseworthy. That is what Jesus did on the cross, what Christians do when they say the Lord's Prayer, what observant Jews do when they recite the bedtime Kriat Sh'ma. But to forgive those who have hurt -- who have murdered -- someone else? I cannot see how the world is made a better place by assuring someone who would do terrible things to others that he will be readily forgiven afterward, even if he shows no remorse.

There are indications that the killer in this case may have been in the grip of depression or delusion . Perhaps it was madness more than evil that drove him to commit this horror, in which case forgiveness might be more understandable.

But the Amish make it clear that their reaction would be the same either way. I wish them well, but I would not want to be like them, reacting to terrible crimes with dispassion and absolution. ``Let those who love the Lord hate evil," the Psalmist writes. The murder of the Amish girls was a deeply hateful evil. There is nothing godly about pretending it wasn't.

And this, by John Podhoretz:

I am a modestly observant Jew, not a Christian, but I can certainly see the beauty and the moral seriousness that would follow from attempting to hew as closely as possible to Christ's example of unconditional love and forgiveness. All the same, this story disturbs me deeply — because there can be no question that anger can be as righteous as forgiveness. I'm not sure I would want to be someone who succeeded in rising above hatred of those who murder children. Does this mean that those who harbor hatred of child killers have somehow achieved a higher level of Godliness than those who succeed in banishing such hatred from their hearts? That seems to be a necessary corollary of the idea that it is heroic to "instruct the young not to hate," and that seems very wrong to me.

I have blogged a number of times here about Jeff Murphy's work, particularly "Getting Even:  Forgiveness and its Limits."  This post has already gone on too long, but it seems to me that Murphy provides some deep-thinking -- thinking that is animated by Murphy's Christianity -- that is consonant with Podhoretz's and Jacoby's reservations.

Sunday, October 8, 2006

Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland?

By Michael Perry

[Interesting case percolating in Ireland.  HT:  Maggie Gallagher.]


Lesbian couple wed in Canada launch landmark lawsuit seeking marriage rights in Ireland
ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 3, 2006            

DUBLIN, Ireland A lesbian couple who were legally married in Canada launched a landmark lawsuit Tuesday seeking to win the same legal rights and financial benefits as married heterosexuals in Ireland.

Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone — who were married in Vancouver, British Columbia, in September 2003 within months of the legalization of same-sex marriage there — are the first gay couple in Ireland to go to court to seek state recognition of a foreign marriage.         

Their action follows a similar case in Britain, where a lesbian couple unsuccessfully sued in July to have their marriage — also attained in Vancouver in 2003 — recognized under British law. Britain, unlike Ireland, already accords marriage-style rights to homosexual couples who register their commitment in legally binding "civil partnerships."

The Irish government argues that it cannot accept the women's argument partly because of Ireland's conservative 1937 constitution, which commits the state "to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack." Homosexuality was illegal in Ireland until 1993.

The lawsuit in the High Court, the second-highest court in Ireland, is expected to last about three weeks and involve about a dozen witnesses testifying on behalf of the women. Whatever the outcome, legal experts expect the losing side to appeal to the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional law.

A lawyer for the couple, Michael Collins, told High Court Justice Elizabeth Dunne that history was full of examples of governments outlawing relationships based on bigoted attitudes. He cited longtime laws forbidding interracial marriage in the United States that were gradually repealed, beginning in California in 1948.        

Gilligan, a Dublin college lecturer in philosophy, is Irish and a former Catholic nun. Zappone, a member of Ireland's government-appointed Human Rights Commission, is an American from Seattle, Washington. They have been a couple since the mid- 1980s when both were pursuing doctoral degrees at Boston College in the United States. Since moving to Ireland two decades ago they have worked together on a string of research projects dealing with urban poverty and feminist rights.

"We are married, happily married, living in a lifelong monogamous partnership," Zappone said outside the courthouse.

They also own two properties together,— an issue driving their demand to ave their foreign union recognized for tax purposes here.

Their legal battle began in 2004 when they challenged the Irish tax authorities' refusal to recognize the existence of their Canadian marriage. This meant they had to file tax separately, a more expensive option, and were unable to claim their full deductions for their properties.

In the longer term, when one of them dies, the other could face a struggle to exercise inheritance rights and, under current law, would face much higher tax burden than a heterosexual widow or widower.

The case, if successful, would have major implications for Ireland's unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, in this predominantly Catholic country of 4.2 million. The 2001 census identified 77,600 households involving unmarried partners — among them 1,300 homosexual couples — who must pay higher rates of income and inheritance taxes than married couples.

Denmark in 1989 became the first country to legislate for same-sex partnerships. Several other European Union members have followed suit: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. While only some specifically recognize such partnerships as marriages, all grant homosexual couples tax, inheritance and child-rearing rights similar to those for married heterosexuals.

In the United States, only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage, Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions, and more than a dozen states grant lesser legal rights to gay couples.

See the article on the web.    

Proof of God

By Eduardo Penalver

This is becoming an annual tradition.  It's what I like to call the Baseballogical Proof of the existence of God and divine justice in the universe.

Voting for the Common Good-- yes, but...

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

During the past several days, I have had an opportunity to reflect on the pamphlet “Voting for the Common Good—A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics” prepared by the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG). It is an interesting compilation of reflections that merits the careful study of those of us who are Catholics and who will be exercise the right to vote next month. It is one effort that attempts to bring together two facets of Catholics who are simultaneously citizens of two “cities.” The text of the CACG document is [HERE].

While I have reviewed several other texts prepared by other Catholic groups who offer guidelines or other counsel for Catholics who will soon be voting in local, state, and national elections, I have decided to offer a few comments on the CACG document.

I begin by noting that there are a number of points this pamphlet makes that are shared by most if not all Catholic citizens. For example, it asserts that Catholics have a responsibility to participate in the political process. The text also cautions that voters need to be mindful not only of what candidates promise but also of what they actually deliver once elected to office. Moreover, it offers some sage advice that rarely is there a perfect candidate for Catholic voters, regardless of party affiliation, for each office for which there is an election. The text also states that Catholic citizens must be mindful of the Great Commandment and the interdependence of all people both locally and globally. It seems to also affirm that not all political issues are of equal weight or importance for the Catholic voter.

So far, so good. But then the document makes certain claims that merit careful scrutiny. While it mentions issues that should be of particular importance to Catholic voters (e.g., poverty, war, human rights, abortion, concerns for the environment), it does not mention other pressing issues for Catholic voters like euthanasia, moral concerns about particular biotechnology issues such as embryonic stem cell research, and issues pertaining to marriage and the family. While correctly identifying some sources of the Church’s teachings on important political, economic, and social issues (e.g., Papal texts, council documents, Scripture, and the writings of the early Church fathers), it does not include important, relevant dicastery documents, although they are cited in several notes within the pamphlet. It is at this point that more substantive concerns emerge.

For example, there is an important presentation in the pamphlet about conscience –“listening to one’s conscience is necessary to make any moral decisions.” (p. 4) But the exercise of conscience by Catholics, including when they participate in public life, cannot be based on a subjective understanding of conscience, either in concept or in application. A subjective understanding of conscience is a perilous course to take, as John Courtney Murray, S.J. once counseled. The conscience of the faithful Catholic citizen, in its authentic form, is informed by objective truth as God has revealed and as the Church teaches. These are points made in Nn. 7 and 8 of the 2002 Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (Doctrinal Note) [HERE].

In this context, the pamphlet comments on the virtue of prudence as the guide that assists in the exercise of conscience. (pp. 5-6) The text then states that “we often must vote for candidates who may hold the ‘wrong’ Catholic positions on some issues in order to maximize the good our vote achieves in other areas.” Once again, we must be mindful that not all political issues are of equal weight or importance. The Doctrinal Note, N. 3, reminds us that “Democracy must be based on the true solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.” The Doctrinal Note continues by stating, in N. 4, that “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.” In this regard, the pamphlet seems to suggest that a voter is limited to exercising his or her franchise to the two (or several) candidates that appear on a ballot. I suggest that in the proper exercise of authentic conscience, as prudentially guided, a Catholic voter should consider other options when they are available. For example, if it is permissible under the local voting law, a faithful Catholic might want to consider voting against both candidates through either abstention on that particular office or providing a write-in candidate.

The CACG text also indicates, p. 6, that “As politically active Catholics, our primary responsibility is to the common good.” While indeed the common good is relevant to the Catholic’s participation in the political process (N. 1, Doctrinal Note; N. 75 Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World), I question that it is the “primary responsibility.” I think that the primary responsibility of the Catholic citizen is to be a faithful disciple who is always mindful of the fact that he or she is a citizen of two cities, not one. As the Doctrinal Note reminds us (N. 9), we must be attentive to “the unity of Christian life: coherence between faith and life, Gospel and culture, as recalled by the Second Vatican Council… to fulfill [our] duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each… May Christians… be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the Glory of God.” (Quoting from N. 43, Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World)

There are two final points made by the pamphlet that require comment. The first appears in the section headed “Frequently Asked Questions” (p. 8). The third question presented in this section is this one: “Is it okay to vote for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate?” The pamphlet answers this important question by suggesting that the answer is “yes.” To substantiate its view, it refers to a “note bene” that appears at the end of a six point memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent to Cardinal McCarrick in June of 2004 by Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. [HERE] The complete text of the “note bene” states: “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” The CACG pamphlet concludes that “it could be acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate if ‘proportionate reasons’ exist, and if the voter is voting based on those reasons and not the candidate’s ‘pro-choice’ beliefs.”

It should be clear that the licitness of the Catholic voter’s decision to vote for the pro-choice candidate depends on “proportionate reasons.” I suggest that these “proportionate reasons” cannot just be any reason, including those reached by the voter in the exercise of a private, i.e., subjective, conscience. I believe that “proportionate”, as used by Cardinal Ratzinger, implies an understanding of extraordinary or compelling reasons. Why do I say this? The “Note Bene” must be understood in relation to the rest of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum and the resulting June 2004 document “Catholics in Political Life” issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [HERE] as commented on by Cardinal Ratzinger in July of 2004 [HERE].

In his memorandum “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Ratzinger reiterated that the “Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin.” (N. 2) Moreover, he stated that “[n]ot all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia… There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

In their document “Catholics in Political Life” that followed, the bishops of the United States made the following important points:

  • The sinfulness of those who cooperate in the evil of abortion

  • The obligation to correct morally defective laws that permit abortion

  • The duty of Catholics to support and advance the moral principles of Catholic teaching in public life

  • Bishops do not have the role of endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, but they do posses the responsibility to form the consciences of Catholics so that the laity, in the exercise of their duties as citizens, can examine the positions of candidates and make choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching

  • The Catholic community and Catholic institutions must never honor (by giving awards, honors, or platforms) those who act in defiance of fundamental moral principles as taught by the Church

In his brief July 2004 response to the bishops’ statement, Cardinal Ratzinger said: “The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles ‘Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.’”

Taking into account these relevant exchanges, it would be dangerous to suggest that the “proportionate reasons” for voting for a pro-choice candidate by a faithful Catholic would be anything other than extraordinary and compelling.

The last point made by the CACG pamphlet meriting comment in this posting concerns the important question, p. 9, “Does voting my conscience mean I can apply my own moral standards?” The initial answer given by the pamphlet is sound: “Our faith teaches that Catholics cannot, in good conscience, disagree with the Church on questions of morality.” However, the pamphlet then backtracks by asserting that “Catholics can disagree in good conscience on the question of how to do the right thing in a practical situation.” (Italics in the original) Not only is there conflict between these two points, but the second one ignores the fact that all decisions, even practical ones, typically involve questions of morality. It seems that the authors of the pamphlet wish to suggest that there is a distinction between the theory of Catholic teaching and its practical application. If this is indeed what the authors suggest, then their reasoning is flawed and the conclusion is false. Doing the “right thing” means making a moral decision in spite of the fact that we live in an imperfect and practical world. The fact that the world is imperfect does not excuse the Catholic from exercising his or her conscience in opposition to the Church’s moral teachings.

RJA sj

Friday, October 6, 2006

"Grandparents' rights"

By Rick Garnett

A worthwhile op-ed, on the "grandparents' rights" movement.  We can all agree, I suppose, that, generally speaking, preserving and nurturing relationships between children and their grandparents is a good thing.  As I've suggested elsewhere, though, it does not follow that fit parents' decisions about visitation and access should be subject to review-for-reasonableness by courts.   

Thursday, October 5, 2006

Immigration and the Plight of Immigrants

By Michael Scaperlanda

Belatedly, I'd like to thank MOJ friend and Duquesne University Law professor, Alison Sulentic, and her colleagues in Duquesne's College of Liberal Arts for hosting an engaging and stimulating conference entitled "Immigration and the Plight of Immigrants:  Politics, Policy, and Morality."  This program, which was held on September 21, was Duquesne's second annual Faith and Politics Symposium. 

Panelists and speakers included law professors, sociologists, bishops, and theologians.  Bishop Tamayo (Loredo, Texas) described Jesus as an immigrant, emigrating from the bosom of the Father and bringing to this earthly home his Trinitarian culture, challenging the civilizations he encountered with that culture.

PB16 on stem-cell research

By Rick Garnett

Here, thanks to ZENIT, is the text of an addressed delivered recently by the Pope at Castel Gandolfo:

Hall of the Swiss, Castel Gandolfo
Saturday, 16 September 2006

Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Priesthood,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

I address a cordial greeting to you all. This meeting with you, scientists and scholars dedicated to specialized research in the treatment of diseases that are a serious affliction to humanity, is a special comfort to me.

I am grateful to the organizers who have promoted this Congress on a topic that has become more and more important in recent years. The specific theme of the Symposium is appropriately formulated with a question open to hope: "Stem cells: what future for therapy?".

I thank Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, for his kind words, also on behalf of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), an association that has cooperated in organizing the Congress and is represented here by Prof. Gianluigi Gigli, outgoing President, and Prof. Simon de Castellvi, President-elect.

When science is applied to the alleviation of suffering and when it discovers on its way new resources, it shows two faces rich in humanity: through the sustained ingenuity invested in research, and through the benefit announced to all who are afflicted by sickness.

Those who provide financial means and encourage the necessary structures for study share in the merit of this progress on the path of civilization.

On this occasion, I would like to repeat what I said at a recent Audience: "Progress becomes true progress only if it serves the human person and if the human person grows: not only in terms of his or her technical power, but also in his or her moral awareness" (cf. General Audience, 16 August 2006).

In this light, somatic stem-cell research also deserves approval and encouragement when it felicitously combines scientific knowledge, the most advanced technology in the biological field and ethics that postulate respect for the human being at every stage of his or her existence.

The prospects opened by this new chapter in research are fascinating in themselves, for they give a glimpse of the possible cure of degenerative tissue diseases that subsequently threaten those affected with disability and death.

How is it possible not to feel the duty to praise all those who apply themselves to this research and all who support the organization and cover its expenses?

I would like in particular to urge scientific structures that draw their inspiration and organization from the Catholic Church to increase this type of research and to establish the closest possible contact with one another and with those who seek to relieve human suffering in the proper ways.

May I also point out, in the face of the frequently unjust accusations of insensitivity addressed to the Church, her constant support for research dedicated to the cure of diseases and to the good of humanity throughout her 2,000-year-old history.

If there has been resistance -- and if there still is -- it was and is to those forms of research that provide for the planned suppression of human beings who already exist, even if they have not yet been born. Research, in such cases, irrespective of efficacious therapeutic results is not truly at the service of humanity.

In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and the lives of the researchers themselves.

History itself has condemned such a science in the past and will condemn it in the future, not only because it lacks the light of God but also because it lacks humanity.

I would like to repeat here what I already wrote some time ago: Here there is a problem that we cannot get around; no one can dispose of human life. An insurmountable limit to our possibilities of doing and of experimenting must be established. The human being is not a disposable object, but every single individual represents God's presence in the world (cf. J. Ratzinger, "God and the World," Ignatius Press, 2002).

In the face of the actual suppression of the human being there can be no compromises or prevarications. One cannot think that a society can effectively combat crime when society itself legalizes crime in the area of conceived life.

On the occasion of recent Congresses of the Pontifical Academy for Life, I have had the opportunity to reassert the teaching of the Church, addressed to all people of good will, on the human value of the newly conceived child, also when considered prior to implantation in the uterus.

The fact that you at this Congress have expressed your commitment and hope to achieve new therapeutic results from the use of cells of the adult body without recourse to the suppression of newly conceived human beings, and the fact that your work is being rewarded by results, are confirmation of the validity of the Church's constant invitation to full respect for the human being from conception. The good of human beings should not only be sought in universally valid goals, but also in the methods used to achieve them.

A good result can never justify intrinsically unlawful means. It is not only a matter of a healthy criterion for the use of limited financial resources, but also, and above all, of respect for the fundamental human rights in the area of scientific research itself.

I hope that God will grant your efforts -- which are certainly sustained by God who acts in every person of good will and for the good of all -- the joy of discovering the truth, wisdom in consideration and respect for every human being, and success in the search for effective remedies to human suffering.

To seal this hope, I cordially impart an affectionate Blessing to all of you, to your collaborators and to your relatives, as well as to the patients who will benefit from your ingenuity and resourcefulness and the results of your work, with the assurance of my special remembrance in prayer.

[Translation distributed by the Holy See]

Welcome to Elizabeth Kirk

By Rick Garnett

I'm delighted to welcome to the MOJ crew my colleague, Elizabeth Kirk.  Elizabeth is the associate director of Notre Dame's Center for Ethics & Culture, and is currently on leave from her law-teaching post at Ave Maria.  Welcome aboard!

Near the College of William & Mary?

By Michael Perry

A message for MOJ-readers who reside in the vicinity of the College of William & Mary (if there are any):  Click here.

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

"A Conversation with Michael Perry"

By Michael Perry

If my dear Emory Law colleague Hal Berman had not told me just this afternoon, I would not have known that there is a "conversation" with me in the current issue of Theology Today.  A strange feeling, to be sure:  a conversation with me that I knew nothing about.  Must be the Ambien.

In case anyone out there is interested, here's the cite:  George Hunsinger, "Torture, Common Morality, and the Golden Rule:  A Conversation with Michael Perry," Theology Today, Volume 63 (2006):  375-379.  (Hunsinger is the Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary.)
_______________
mp

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive