Wesley Smith notes the increasing respectability of the voices calling for the legalization of euthanasia for ill and disabled newborns.
Rob
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Wesley Smith notes the increasing respectability of the voices calling for the legalization of euthanasia for ill and disabled newborns.
Rob
I would like to thank Rob for posting the link to the Boston Globe article on Catholic identity. While the linked article focuses on Boston College, the issues that it addresses apply to many other educational institutions, some mentioned in the linked report, that rely on the modifier “Catholic.” One would think that an institution which relies on this characteristic and distinctiveness would be able to attract students, faculty, administrators, and staff to replenish and fortify the soul of its self-characterization. But other forces compete with the Catholic institution’s identity. One of them is the compelling drive to “be like” some other institution that seems to have more fame, more success, or, simply, more money. As with other envies, this is not necessarily a good objective to pursue. In the present age, many others have lamented on the problems which face higher education and, for that matter, all education today. One of the problems is the fragmentation of education and the drive for specialized studies that make no effort to connect what is studied with the search for wisdom and, quite possibly, even the pursuit of truth. In this regard, the existence of truth is denied by many, and this is manifested in the relativism that faces the world of higher education of the present generation. Still another problem that often must be met is the environment of secularization in which higher education often finds itself. The destiny of each member of the human race becomes immaterial to the labor of student and scholar because there is no final objective of the human person, there is no concern about the afterlife because it has been declared by some that there is none. God has died or, at least, become irrelevant.
I have been reading Christopher Dawson’s book The Crisis of Western Education. Last evening I came across his reference to the nineteenth century efforts of Joseph Chamberlain whose liberal inclination enabled him, Chamberlain, to declare that the objective of his educational cause “in England, throughout the continent of Europe and in America has been to wrest the education of the young out of the hands of the priests, to whatever denomination they might belong.” It would seem that Boston College and other institutions that still rely on the moniker “Catholic” have come to realize that there is something to Chamberlain’s goal that poses not only a problem but a threat to the vitality of a school’s identification and soul. If the efforts of Chamberlain’s disciples have succeeded at Boston College and other institutions, will the endeavors of Catholic renewal mentioned in the Globe article be successful in their campaign?
As one priest who has been confronted by the followers of Chamberlain but who is still involved in the education of the young, and not-so-young, I watch from afar with great interest in this enterprise of renewal. The measure of its success will depend not only on human effort but on hope and trust in God as well. RJA sj
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
As other posts have mentioned, the U.S. Catholic bishops have been meeting this week and issuing statements on a variety of issues. Among these is a statement, which comes after much debate and study over the past two years (and prior discussions on the Mirror of Justice as well), on receiving communion by those who reject fundamental Church teachings, such as on the sanctity of life.
The Catholic New Services reports that the bishops on Tuesday voted 201-24 with two abstentions to approve a document that says that a Catholic who "knowingly and obstinately" rejects "the defined doctrines of the church" or repudiates the church's "definitive teaching on moral issues" would not be in communion with the church and therefore should not receive the Eucharist. The document also criticizes those who "give selective assent to the teachings of the church." Moreover, the document states, if a person who "is publicly known to have committed serious sin or to have rejected definitive church teaching and is not yet reconciled with the church" were to take Communion, it "is likely to cause scandal for others," which provides a "further reason" for the person to refrain. However, in a footnote, the bishops said this document was not intended "to provide specific guidelines" to the provision in canon law that says that Catholics "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" should not be allowed to receive Communion.
For my own take on this question, as a matter of canon law and pastoral counseling, see Abortion, Bishops, Eucharist, and Politicians: A Question of Communion (with Charles J. Reid, Jr.), 43 Catholic Lawyer 255 (2004) (link here).
Most importantly, this document reminds all of the Catholic faithful about the sacred meaning, personally and communally, of approaching the altar. Each of us need once again to undertake, as we did at the time of our Confirmation, that rigorous examination of our own consciences toward the end of being drawn ever more deeply into full communion with the Church through Reconciliation as appropriate and then our due reception of the Body and Blood of Christ at the Lord’s Supper. God knows how poignant this reminder should be for me.
Greg Sisk
MOJ-friend and Trinity College Dublin law prof Gerry Whyte sends this our way:
The Irish Times
November 15, 2006
Luke Cassidy
A woman has lost a High Court battle to have frozen embyos implanted in her womb against the will of her estranged husband.
The woman claimed the embryos, created using in vitro fertilisation technology, should have been afforded the protection given to the unborn under the Constitution.
However, the High Court decided today that the three frozen embryos are not "unborn" as defined under the Constitution and it is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide on their legal status. Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution states acknowledges the right to life of the unborn "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother".
But in a 26-page High Court ruling delivered this morning Mr Justice Brian McGovern said that three frozen embryos are "not 'unborn' with the meaning of Article 40.3.3 and it is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide what steps should be taken to establish the legal status of embryos in vitro".
"Laws should, and generally do, reflect society's values and will be influenced by them. But, at the end of the day, it is the duty of the courts to implement and apply the law, not morality," the judge said.
"Until the law or the Constitution is changed, this issue remains within the sphere of ethics and morality."
The ruling comes as an estranged Dublin couple battle over the use of three frozen embryos stored in the Sims Fertility Clinic, Rathgar.
The High Court has already ruled the estranged husband did not give his consent for the eggs to be used in the event of their marriage breaking up.
Today's ruling is the second stage of the case, with the judge asked to consider public and constitutional law issues.
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said he is seriously concerned by today's High Court ruling against a woman who tried to have frozen embyos implanted in her womb against the will of her estranged husband.
The Archbishop said the court's ruling that the three frozen embryos are not "unborn" as defined under the Constitution "cast doubt on what rules were in place to protect life".
The Pro-Life Campaign said it was "confident the Supreme Court will vindicate the rights of the human embryo if the judgement is appealed."
The Labour Party welcomed the clarity that the High Court decision on the frozen embryo case has brought, although it insists that the Government must now produce legislation for assisted reproduction clinics.
Eduardo Peñalver, like fellow MOJ-blogger Mark Sargent, is now blogging at dotCommonweal. For Eduardo's first post there, commenting critically on the
click here.
As I have mentioned many times on this blog, I am troubled by the frequency with which efforts by religious institutions and associations to hire employees, or select members, in a way that is consistent with their religious identity and mission are characterized as "discrimination." This news story (thanks to Amy Welborn) describes how the same kind of aggressive homogenization of religious associations is proceeding in the U.K., and bringing together Anglicans and Catholics.
Here is a joint statement, put out by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Conner, about efforts at British Universities to ban "Christian unions," on anti-discrimination grounds.
Here is more, from The Times:
Seventy Church of Engand and Roman Catholic bishops were urged today to intervene to help thousands of Christian students at British universities from having the organisations representing them banned.
Among those asked to take action to save Christian Union societies were the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster.The rise of secularism in the UK is among the issues being debated today and tomorrow at the first ever joint meeting of the Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales in Leeds.
Dr Rowan Williams and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor were to issue a joint statement later today on the importance of working together and how to surmount the differences that remain between the two churches.
The 40 Anglican and 30 Catholic bishops began their unprecedented two-day meeting at Hinsley Hall at lunchtime. The bishops prayed and worshipped together and discussed how to heal the historic rift between them.
But Christian Union leaders urged them to move away from the usual "bland platitudes" associated with ecumenical gatherings to help the beleaguered Christian student societies under threat of bans.
Some heavy thoughts about Rome, Europe, religion, and collapse, by Niall Ferguson (thanks to Rod Dreher).
The "Quiverfull" movement is a rapidly expanding group of mostly Protestant families dedicated to the belief that God is the only legitimate family planner (so even natural family planning is prohibited). Newsweek profiles the movement, suggesting that broader Catholic-Evangelical cooperation on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage has resulted in many conservative evangelicals second-guessing their previous embrace of contraception. Folks at The Nation, not surprisingly, are not fans of the movement. Here's a quote from one of the Quiverfull faithful:
[She] argues that feminism is a religion in its own right, one that is inherently incompatible with Christianity. "Christians have accepted feminists' 'moderate' demands for family planning and careers while rejecting the 'radical' side of feminism--meaning lesbianism and abortion," writes Pride. "What most do not see is that one demand leads to the other. Feminism is a totally self-consistent system aimed at rejecting God's role for women. Those who adopt any part of its lifestyle can't help picking up its philosophy." "Family planning," Pride argues, "is the mother of abortion. A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular."
It's clear that the Quiverfull mothers have picked up on the Church's teaching regarding the dangers of contraception; perhaps we could send them some encyclicals so they get the rest of the story?
Rob
Our own Steve Bainbridge has been named the William D. Warren Professor of Law -- an endowed-chair position. Congratulations!
Washington University law prof Laura Rosenbury has posted a working draft of her paper, "Friends With Benefits?" (HT: PrawfsBlawg) I have not yet read the paper, but she appears to be tackling a frequently overlooked bastion of nefarious discrimination: our legal system's willingness to privilege marriage over friendship. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
This Article [argues] that family law’s focus on marriage and marriage-like relationships, whether they be opposite-sex or same-sex, serves to perpetuate gender inequality. This existing focus implicitly privileges domesticated sexual relationships over other adult intimate relationships, namely friendships. Legal recognition and support is therefore provided to certain types of caregiving relationships but not others. Although such privileging may be obvious, because marriage is placed within the purview of family law and friendship is placed without, family law scholars have not examined the effects of family law’s recognition and support of marriage and marriage-like relationships and its silence about friendship.
This Article examines those effects, concluding that family law’s silence about friendship likely impedes the achievement of full gender equality in two related ways. First, the silence maintains a divide between marriage and “mere” friendship, implying that friendship is sufficiently different from marriage and marriage-like relationships to be properly outside of family law’s concern. It is unclear whether this view conforms to people’s lived experiences, although the very fact of legal recognition is a salient difference between friendship and marriage. Lived experience can thus be shaped by family law’s focus on marriage and silence about friendship. Second, this divide is not gender neutral, but rather amounts to state support of the types of domestic caretaking that traditionally played a vital role in maintaining state-supported patriarchy and that still largely follow gendered patterns today. Therefore, family law’s focus on marriage to the exclusion of other forms of friendship can perpetuate gendered patterns of care by encouraging people to prioritize sexual, domestic relationships over other relationships.
I have to admit that my confidence in our ability to extend legal recognition to committed same-sex couples without abandoning the legal significance of family is consistently undermined when I read modern family law scholarship.
Rob