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.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Colbert on the Ecu-Menace

Shifting gears slightly from "Evangelicals and Catholics Together":  Check out Steve Colbert riffing on the Nicene Creed (at least, I *think* it's the Nicene Creed) in this bit about the Pope's recent visit to Turkey. 

The Human Person, the Heart of Peace

Here (thanks to Amy Welborn) is the text of the Pope's message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace.  This is from the conclusion, and connects nicely with some MOJ-explored themes:

16. Finally, I wish to make an urgent appeal to the People of God: let every Christian be committed to tireless peace-making and strenuous defence of the dignity of the human person and his inalienable rights.

With gratitude to the Lord for having called him to belong to his Church, which is “the sign and safeguard of the transcendental dimension of the human person”(9) in the world, the Christian will tirelessly implore from God the fundamental good of peace, which is of such primary importance in the life of each person. Moreover, he will be proud to serve the cause of peace with generous devotion, offering help to his brothers and sisters, especially those who, in addition to suffering poverty and need, are also deprived of this precious good. Jesus has revealed to us that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8) and that the highest vocation of every person is love. In Christ we can find the ultimate reason for becoming staunch champions of human dignity and courageous builders of peace.

17. Let every believer, then, unfailingly contribute to the advancement of a true integral humanism in accordance with the teachings of the Encyclical Letters Populorum Progressio and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, whose respective fortieth and twentieth anniversaries we prepare to celebrate this year. To the Queen of Peace, the Mother of Jesus Christ “our peace” (Eph 2:14), I entrust my urgent prayer for all humanity at the beginning of the year 2007, to which we look with hearts full of hope, notwithstanding the dangers and difficulties that surround us. May Mary show us, in her Son, the Way of peace, and enlighten our vision, so that we can recognize Christ's face in the face of every human person, the heart of peace!

Sloth vs. Greed?

Eduardo raises an intriguing question about the lack of "traction" in our culture for arguments that cast the dangers of working too hard in moral terms.  What about the vice of greed, or avarice, as the counterpart to sloth?  Surely greed could be understood more broadly than simply the desire for material wealth or gain;  wouldn't it also encompass the desire for power or admiration or control or SSRN downloads that motivates people to voluntarily work far more than the balance of obligations in most people's lives would naturally dictate?   I'd propose to add a pinch or two of "pride" and "idolatry" to the notion of greed.  What might we call that?

Lisa

GAY AND EVANGELICAL

New York Times
December 12, 2006

Gay and Evangelical, Seeking Paths of Acceptance
By NEELA BANERJEE

RALEIGH, N.C. — Justin Lee believes that the Virgin birth was real, that there is a heaven and a hell, that salvation comes through Christ alone and that he, the 29-year-old son of Southern Baptists, is an evangelical Christian.

Just as he is certain about the tenets of his faith, Mr. Lee also knows he is gay, that he did not choose it and cannot change it.

To many people, Mr. Lee is a walking contradiction, and most evangelicals and gay people alike consider Christians like him horribly deluded about their faith. “I’ve gotten hate mail from both sides,” said Mr. Lee, who runs gaychristian.net, a Web site with 4,700 registered users that mostly attracts gay evangelicals.
. . .

[O]ver the last 30 years, ... gay evangelicals have ... created organizations where they are accepted.

Members of Evangelicals Concerned, founded in 1975 by a therapist from New York, Ralph Blair, worship in cities including Denver, New York and Seattle. Web sites have emerged, like Christianlesbians.com and Mr. Lee’s gaychristian.net, whose members include gay people struggling with coming out, those who lead celibate lives and those in relationships.

Justin Cannon, 22, a seminarian who grew up in a conservative Episcopal parish in Michigan, started two Web sites, including an Internet dating site for gay Christians.

“About 90 percent of the profiles say ‘Looking for someone with whom I can share my faith and that it would be a central part of our relationship,’ ” Mr. Cannon said, “so not just a life partner but someone with whom they can connect spiritually.”

But for most evangelicals, gay men and lesbians cannot truly be considered Christian, let alone evangelical.

“If by gay evangelical is meant someone who claims both to abide by the authority of Scripture and to engage in a self-affirming manner in homosexual unions, then the concept gay evangelical is a contradiction,” Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, said in an e-mail message.

“Scripture clearly, pervasively, strongly, absolutely and counterculturally opposes all homosexual practice,” Dr. Gagnon said. “I trust that gay evangelicals would argue otherwise, but Christian proponents of homosexual practice have not made their case from Scripture.”

In fact, both sides look to Scripture. The debate is largely over seven passages in the Bible about same-sex couplings. Mr. Gagnon and other traditionalists say those passages unequivocally condemn same-sex couplings.

Those who advocate acceptance of gay people assert that the passages have to do with acts in the context of idolatry, prostitution or violence. The Bible, they argue, says nothing about homosexuality as it is largely understood today as an enduring orientation, or about committed long-term, same-sex relationships.

For some gay evangelicals, their faith in God helped them override the biblical restrictions people preached to them. One lesbian who attends Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh said she grew up in a devout Southern Baptist family and still has what she calls the “faith of a child.” When she figured out at 13 that she was gay, she believed there must have been something wrong with the Bible for condemning her.

“I always knew my own heart: that I loved the Lord, I loved Jesus, loved the church and felt the Spirit move through me when we sang,” said the woman, who declined to be identified to protect her partner’s privacy. “I felt that if God created me, how is that wrong?”

But most evangelicals struggle profoundly with reconciling their faith and homosexuality, and they write to people like Mr. Lee.

There is the 65-year-old minister who is a married father and gay. There are the teenagers considering suicide because they have been taught that gay people are an abomination. There are those who have tried the evangelical “ex-gay” therapies and never became straight.

Mr. Lee said he and his family, who live in Raleigh, have been through almost all of it. His faith was central to his life from an early age, he said. He got the nickname Godboy in high school. But because of his attraction to other boys, he wept at night and begged God to change him. He was certain God would, but when that did not happen, he said, it called everything into question.

He knew no one who was gay who could help, and he could not turn to his church. So for a year, Mr. Lee went to the library almost every day with a notebook and the bright blue leather-bound Bible his parents had given him. He set up his Web site to tell his friends what he was learning through his readings, but e-mail rolled in from strangers, because, he says, other gay evangelicals came to understand they were not alone.

“I told them I don’t have the answers,” Mr. Lee said, “but we can pray together and see where God takes us.”

But even when they accept themselves, gay evangelicals often have difficulty finding a community. They are too Christian for many gay people, with the evangelical rock they listen to and their talk of loving God. Mr. Lee plans to remain sexually abstinent until he is in a long-term, religiously blessed relationship, which would make him a curiosity in straight and gay circles alike.

Gay evangelicals seldom find churches that fit. Congregations and denominations that are open to gay people are often too liberal theologically for evangelicals. Yet those congregations whose preaching is familiar do not welcome gay members, those evangelicals said.

Clyde Zuber, 49, and Martin Fowler, 55, remember sitting on the curb outside Lakeview Baptist Church in Grand Prairie, Tex., almost 20 years ago, Sunday after Sunday, reading the Bible together, after the pastor told them they were not welcome inside. The men met at a Dallas church and have been together 23 years. In Durham, N.C., they attend an Episcopal church and hold a Bible study for gay evangelicals every Friday night at their home.

“Our faith is the basis of our lives,” said Mr. Fowler, a soft-spoken professor of philosophy. “It means that Jesus is the Lord of our household, that we resolve differences peacefully and through love.”

Their lives seem a testament to all that is changing and all that holds fast among evangelicals. Their parents came to their commitment ceremony 20 years ago, their decision ultimately an act of loyalty to their sons, Mr. Zuber said.

But Mr. Zuber’s sister and brother-in-law in Virginia remain convinced that the couple is sinning. “They’re worried we’re going to hell,” Mr. Zuber said. “They say, ‘We love you, but we’re concerned.’ ”

 

Monday, December 11, 2006

The Opposite of Sloth

Here's an interesting article about a new breed of executive, referred to in the article as "extreme workers," who eagerly work 70 hour weeks with little vacation.  In reading Catholic Social Teachings on labor (e.g., Laborem Exercens) for my CST class, I've often strugged to make its lessons relevant to a class full of future (usually highly paid) lawyers. 

Part of the problem is that the CST discussions wage and hour issues typically address the question of workers who work long hours in order to put food on the table.  Most of my students, however, are heading for the law firm world, where they will bill anywhere from 2200 to 3000 hours per year and work many additional non-billable hours and be well compensated for their sacrifice.  The question of what to say to workers who would volunteer to work overly long hours is, apparently, not something the encyclical writers have even considered.  But many of the harms identified in the CST writings as resulting from too much time at work -- e.g., not enough time for family, leisure, worship, or spiritual reflection -- are the same, whether the long hours are chosen or imposed by necessity. 

In our culture, the idea of too much work as a bad, even sinful, thing just has no traction.  Maybe it's our Calvinist heritage.  Or maybe it's that, while many sins are conceived as paired examples of excess (e.g., cowardice and foolhardiness), with virtue (courage) as the mean, I'm not sure there is a counterpart to the sin of sloth.  We would do a better job of discouraging people from working too hard, I've concluded, if we had a name for this sin and understood industriousness, like courage, as a mean.  My question is:  if there were, what would a good name for it be?

Iowa and Separation: Response to Eduardo

I agree completely with Eduardo (posting at the Commonweal blog) that "the dubious origins of the discourse of 'separation' do[] not mean that, as a substantive matter, the consequences of separation of Church and State" -- properly understood -- "are not as good for Church as they are for the State."  And, I agree entirely with him that we would do well to think long and hard before endorsing a program that involved "straight-up state funding for a program in which Catholic inmates can be browbeaten by evangelicals in order to receive more comfortable cells."  As I suggested in my earlier post, though, I remain skeptical that this statement fairly describes the operation and aims of the program.

Reading the comments to Eduardo's post over at Commonweal, I am struck by the antipathy that many smart, progressive Catholics seem to have toward the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" movement.  My own experiences with thoughtful Evangelicals -- and, to be clear, I have had lots of experience with hard-core anti-Catholic Protestants -- makes it hard for me to join some of those commenters in dismissing the movement as merely involving a convenient political alliance relating to abortion and culture-wars issues. Of course it is true that Catholics and Evangelicals differ, on important things and in important ways -- even those of us born after the Council know this.  Still, I think it is a mistake to turn too quickly, perhaps because one just doesn't like Fr. Neuhaus's politics, against a movement that, perhaps, holds real ecumenical and evangelical promise.

Iowa Prison Story

Rick says:  For starters, the title -- "Religion for a Captive Audience" -- seems a bit misleading, since no inmates are required to participate in the "Inner Change" program or others like it.

This is true, as far as it goes, but one key question about this program is how many "others like it" there were.  My guess is that this is not some sort of open forum or school-vouchers-like program where anyone can open up shop to try out their own rehabilitation scheme.  Almost by definition, then, this cannot generate equal treatment, even on the most religion-friendly understanding of that question.  Only a favored few groups will be able to participate and the idea that the state would fund proselytizing by one of those select groups is fairly troubling. 

It's also worth noting that goods that seem trivial to those of us not in prison -- e.g., private toilets -- might well be viewed as extremely significant benefits to those inside.  As a consequence, there might be more than a trivial amount of pressure to at least give a program like this a try. 

Faith in Iowa Prisons

Michael P. asks "how should we think about" the program discussed in this recent New York Times article.  For what it's worth, I think we should approach the article's account with some care, even skepticism. 

For starters, the title -- "Religion for a Captive Audience" -- seems a bit misleading, since no inmates are required to participate in the "Inner Change" program or others like it.  Second, it strikes me as relevant that the author, Diana B. Henriques, was also a lead contributor to the Times' recent four-part series on religious exemptions.  That series, I think, was seriously flawed, and missed the boat in a number of respects.

Finally, it is true -- as the story mentions -- that the federal-court decision invalidating the Iowa program cited some allegedly anti-Catholic incidents in support of the conclusion that the program violates the First Amendment.  As I argued in this amicus brief, though, the district-court judge went well beyond the facts, and his own expertise, in characterizing the theological content of the program and pronouncing on the views of Evangelicals and Catholics.  For more detail, check out the brief.

This is not to say that, under current constitutional doctrine, all things considered, the court erred in invalidating the program.  But, in my view -- and I'm certainly not one to downplay the reality of anti-Catholicism -- the anti-Catholicism theme in the opinion, and in the news story, is a red herring.

Essentially a Mother

Tennessee law prof Jennifer Hendricks has won the AALS junior scholars paper contest with Essentially a Mother.  From the abstract:

Rather than following existing precedent on parental rights, the law of high-tech parenthood is tending sharply in the direction of denigrating gestation, defining parenthood exclusively in terms of genes or contracts. I show that conferring parental rights on gestational mothers would produce better outcomes and be more consistent with the best aspects of existing constitutional precedents.

Pope Benedict to us jurists

Most remarkable in the following, I think, is the unequivocal affirmation that the "moral law" must govern us in our social -- and, therefore, our political -- connections.  Pope Benedict generally avoids the idiom of law to describe the moral order, but when he talks to the jurists, he hits the nail on the head.    

VATICAN CITY, DEC 9, 2006 (VIS) - The Pope today received participants in the 56th national study congress, promoted by the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists, which is being held in Rome on the theme: "Secularity and secularities."

  The concept of secularity, said the Holy Father in his address to the group, originally referred to "the condition of simple faithful Christian, not belonging to the clergy or the religious state. During the Middle Ages it acquired the meaning of opposition between civil authorities and ecclesial hierarchies, and in modern times it has assumed the significance of the exclusion of religion and its symbols from public life by confining them to the private sphere and the individual conscience. In this way, the term secularity has acquired an ideological meaning quite opposite to the one it originally held."

  Secularity today, then, "is understood as a total separation between State and Church, the latter not having any right to intervene in questions concerning the life and behavior of citizens. And such secularity even involves the exclusion of religious symbols from public places." In accordance with this definition, the Pope continued, "today we hear talk of secular thought, secular morals, secular science, secular politics. In fact, at the root of such a concept, is an a-religious view of life, thought and morals; that is, a view in which there is no place for God, for a Mystery that transcends pure reason, for a moral law of absolute value that is valid in all times and situations."

  The Holy Father underlined the need "to create a concept of secularity that, on the one hand, grants God and His moral law, Christ and His Church, their just place in human life at both an individual and a social level, and on the other hand affirms and respects the 'legitimate autonomy of earthly affairs'."

  The Church, the Pope reiterated, cannot intervene in politics, because that would "constitute undue interference." However, "'healthy secularity' means that the State does not consider religion merely as an individual sentiment that can be confined to the private sphere." Rather, it must be "recognized as a ... public presence. This means that all religious confessions (so long as they do not contrast the moral order and are not dangerous to public order) are guaranteed free exercise of their acts of worship."

  Hostility against "any form of political or cultural relevance of religion," and in particular against "any kind of religious symbol in public institutions" is a degenerated form of secularity, said the Holy Father, as is "refusing the Christian community, and those who legitimately represent it, the right to pronounce on the moral problems that today appeal to the conscience of all human beings, particularly of legislators.

  "This," he added, "does not constitute undue interference of the Church in legislative activity, which is the exclusive competence of the State, but the affirmation and the defense of those great values that give meaning to people's lives and safeguard their dignity. These values, even before being Christian, are human, and therefore cannot leave the Church silent and indifferent, when she has the duty firmly to proclaim the truth about man and his destiny."

  The Pope concluded by highlighting the need "to bring people to understand that the moral law God gave us - and that expresses itself in us through the voice of conscience - has the aim not of oppressing us but of freeing us from evil and of making us happy. We must show that without God man is lost, and that the exclusion of religion from social life, and in particular the marginalization of Christianity, undermines the very foundations of human coexistence. Such foundations, indeed, before being of the social and political order, belong to the moral order."