Libertas Ecclesiae

I would like to express my gratitude to Rick for his reminder that today is Religious Freedom Day [HERE], and to Rick and Rob for their exchange on The Taint of Association (Rob) [HERE] and Detainees and Catholic Charities (Rick) [HERE] . Some may recall that last March I offered a few thoughts about the Harvard/Ropes & Gray issue when a regular contributor to the Boston Globe commented on the pressure put on Ropes & Gray to drop Catholic Charities as a client [HERE] . Rob offered a thoughtful view, with which I agree in principle, by arguing that “it’s a healthy sign of moral engagement when law students challenge a firm’s decision to devote its resources to a particular client or cause”. I know this is a point to which Rob holds dearly because of his response to my posting from last March. But there is a need to be clear about the action that was pursued by the Harvard law students in the Ropes & Gray situation that the three of us have addressed. These students were not engaging on moral grounds using moral means a decision by Ropes & Gray to represent Catholic Charities. They were engaged in tactics unbecoming of reasoned judgment and moral argument—they were threatening; they were bullying; they were harassing; they were intimidating. This was the application of pressure, pure and simple. Ropes & Gray did not respond with persuasive argument and reasoned expression; they succumbed to the power of pressure of those whose actions were not moral engagement. If readers think my remarks harsh, let us reexamine the words of one student who led the crusade: “boycott—slash—picket”, “to shame”, “who in this game [Araujo, here: this is not a game] is maximally positioned to exert pressure on Ropes & Gray? It’s law students…”. (My italics)

The re-visitation of this episode at the core of the discussion between Rick and Rob is a powerful reminder of those who take religious freedom seriously and join in today’s celebration that this vital liberty is still denied by some. Thus, it is important for us who join in this commemoration to remember another lawyer of long ago, Thomas More, who lost his life in the exercise of his proper religious freedom. In a letter to his daughter, Margaret, dated 2 or 3 May 1535 (a few weeks before his execution for high treason), he wrote: “I am, quoth I, the King’s true faithful subject and daily… pray for his Highness and all his and all the realm. I do nobody harm, I say none harm, I think none harm, but wish everybody good. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive in good faith [since he would not bend to Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn] I long not to live.”

I, too, pray for our country, our profession, and our legal system. I wish harm to no one; and, like More, I wish them good. But there is a need to be honest about the tactics of some whose actions trivialize or endanger the proper exercise of religious freedom. To examine the exercise of this right in a moral engagement is understandable; but, to threaten its exercise with tactics such as those used in the matter of Ropes & Gray is objectionable.   RJA sj