A response to Eduardo

I thank, with the utmost sincerity, Eduardo for his post dated yesterday, and I am grateful again for his contributions to this forum and our exchanges within it. I would like to begin with his concluding points and then respond to some of his earlier statements.

I think there is an important role and need for a discussion venue such as Mirror of Justice. It is not my position to declare that those of us who participate in this exchange are building a (in the singular) Catholic Legal Theory on any substantive issue. Having made this point, I do think we exchange views on the issues of the day that are of concern both to the law and to the Church. On some occasions there is agreement by the contributors, but on other occasions there is not. The fact that some of us may question or challenge certain teachings of the Church and others argue in their favor would not be, in my opinion, grounds for suggesting that this project, Mirror of Justice, should be discontinued.

I for one am glad that we can talk about the issues of the day that present moral and ethical challenges to our society and its members. It is clear there are differences of opinion on the law and the moral or ethical concerns that are associated with the legal issues we address as we claim to do this from a Catholic perspective. Generally, we have had civil exchange amongst ourselves to explain our respective, sometimes conflicting views. I believe that is how a disciple, a member of the Church is to conduct himself or herself. In the Letter to the Romans, St. Paul counsels that we must not be overcome by evil; but, we must overcome evil with good. This is not an easy task, but it is the task of the person who considers himself or herself a disciple of Jesus Christ. From my perspective and, yes, my experience, this forum is a much more open one than many segments of the contemporary American academy today, including some of those that use the modifier Catholic, where some contributions to discourse are discouraged or not permitted. Typically, the views that are not welcome are those that remain faithful to the Magisterium. If a person believes that another is wrong, the mechanism of civil exchange exists to explore the soundness of the views expressed by the participants to the discussion. But, there is a problem when some folks avoid any exchange, and they substitute it with ad hominem critique that objectifies the person who holds a contrary view. While such conduct exists, it should not in the Catholic forum. I think that the Mirror of Justice has enabled people with different perspectives on specific issues to participate without exclusion. Now, I would like to address a few of Eduardo’s other points on particular substantive issues.

A good number of us have recently talked about topics dealing with sexual orientation and homosexuality. I think I understand what the Church teaches and accept its teachings as correct. There are those who disagree with me, and, I guess, with the Magisterium. But I must mention that my agreement is based on a careful study of the Church’s texts and supporting medical evidence (including that from the Catholic Medical Association). I hasten to add that I have also studied the arguments and supporting information that is relied upon by those with opposing or different views. But, I find their supporting data lacking. A web log is not conducive to an elaborate, multi-page examination of the merits and shortcomings of such technical information, but I want contributors and readers to know that I have conducted a careful study of opposing arguments and the information that is relied upon for their support.

Many of the major legal issues of the day that get exposure in Mirror of Justice are discussed in other forums by those who are considered to be the “experts.” But are they really experts? Is it possible that they are, in fact, partisans in the increasing culture disputes often fueled by relativism and fragmentation of learning? It strikes me that in many instances “experts” have substituted rigorously developed objective data with political ideology. When they confront opposing views based on objective data, they shut out the data and the opinions based on the objective data as “intolerant,” “traditional,” or, dare I say, “Catholic.” When we get into certain issues that bring up matters about biotechnology, human life, or human sexuality, I find that some advocates whose views differ from mine have substituted political ideology for science even though they claim to rely on the latter. If one thinks about human anatomy, for example, and considers the difference between the male and the female and what these differences mean beyond what the individual person would like them to mean, the reasonableness and truthfulness of the views held and presented by the Magisterium become all the more apparent. But, I recognize that there are some folks who choose to take a different path, but, in doing so, they deny the authority of something beyond themselves because they are the only authority, or so it seems. Perhaps the hierarchy have not had to cite studies in support of some of their claims because the challengers have raised little or nothing that requires rebuttal with such studies.

Eduardo did not raise this topic in his post of yesterday; however, a number of us have recently discussed the New York Times article of December 1 entitled “Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn’t Clear.” I decided to examine more carefully some of the “progressive” schools discussed in this article that encourage their students “to be in touch with their inner selves.” I was fascinated by the depiction of “Traditional vs. Progressive/Constructivist Classrooms” that the Aurora School has on its web page. The Aurora School identifies itself as “progressive/constructivist.” In a nutshell, however, their depiction is flawed because it is based on false assumptions about “traditional” education. But these false assumptions are nevertheless permitted by intelligent people to support the “truths” of their extraordinary but flawed claims.

I’ll conclude by coming back to my first point which was Eduardo’s last. I consider myself fortunate that the Mirror of Justice forum exists, for a number of reasons. First of all, it enables me to present my ideas that deal with the law and the correlative Catholic intellectual tradition. It is often hard to come by such a forum including the contemporary academy. Second, this forum provides me with the insight of others—both MOJ contributors and readers—which I value because these other perspectives enable me to test the soundness of the positions that I take and hold. Third, it serves as one part of the vineyard where I and other disciples try to overcome some of the evil in the world with a bit of good. And, fourth, by offering this response, it reminds me that I might have to consider additional views to the things I have said here and respond to them in what I hope is a civil and amicable exchange.     RJA sj