Following up on our meeting last summer at Fordham, the Conference on Catholic Legal Thought will be meeting again on June 13, 14, and 15 at UST Law in Minneapolis. We'll begin with a day of introduction to basics of Catholic social teachings, and then continue with two days of more in-depth workshops on the following topics:
Corporations.An examination of one of the most significant liturgical/doctrinal events in Catholic social teaching in the 20th century -- the institution of the Feast of Christ the King and the encyclical establishing it - Quas Primas. This encyclical provides the clear teaching and liturgical expression of the primary principle that Christ is the king of every person, family, society, corporation, partnership, city, state and country, which has significant ramifications for how to approach every area of law.Case Study:An ecumenical examination of how the teachings of Quas Primas relate to the ordering of the business world from both Catholic and Protestant perspectives.
Feminism/Life Issues.A roundtable discussion on the tensions between resort to arguments based on emerging scientific knowledge and resort to arguments based on theological principles, in developing CLT in some currently contested areas.Topics under consideration include assisted reproduction, stem cell research, contraception, and the theology of the body.
Legal Theory.A discussion on the challenges that modern legal theories pose to traditional modes of conceptualizing law, such as natural law theories. The discussion proceeds from within political theology, which seeks to evaluate the particular forms of imagery embedded in political discourse (which includes legal theory) against Christian doctrines such as Trinity, Church and eschatology. The focus here will be on why and how modern legal theories offer an alternative to traditional Catholic understanding of law.
Constitution/Public Life.A book in progress, tentatively titled To Bind Up the Nation’s Wounds: Rekindling the Spirit of Our Living Constitution, will be the subject of a workshop.CLT either overtly or covertly will provide the underlying structure for the book.
The conference is free, and, thanks to Our Sunday Visitor Foundation, we even have some limited funds available to cover travel expenses for those who would otherwise not be able to attend. More details and registration forms are available here. I'll post more details in a few weeks, when the speakers and the schedule are finalized.
Thoughts for Your Consideration The events of Holy Thursday connect us with Catholic Social Teaching. The Holy Thursday scriptures challenge us to move beyond ourselves into the freedom and joy of Jesus Christ which is shared in community. This divine spirituality inspires social change in the Christian community and in the whole world community.
The Exodus: In the first reading we are invited into the exodus story, the great story of God leading people from slavery to freedom, the great story of God bringing people together into a community. God’s spirit inspires the liberation of those who are enslaved. Liberation is at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching.
The Passover Meal – The Eucharist: In the second reading, we are invited into the Passover meal which Jesus celebrated with his friends. We are invited into the Eucharist to receive the body of Christ and to become the living body of Christ. This solidarity with one another is essential to Catholic Social Teaching.
The Washing of Feet: In the Gospel story, we are invited into the Passover meal and the profound ritual of washing feet – the profound ritual of service. Service is what being a follower of Jesus is about. (It is so central to what Jesus is about, that some have proposed that we do this each Sunday, just as we share the Eucharist each week.) Service, especially to the poor and all those in need, is at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching.
Service and Mutuality: The interaction between Jesus and Peter reminds us of the mutuality of service that is essential to the Christian life. Peter, along with all the other disciples, is told to go and do the same, but first he is also told that he has to have his feet washed. The Christian community is not a community of “domination over,” or a community where some have it and others do not, or a community divided by those in need and those not in need. We all need to serve and we all need to be served. In community we share our needs as well as our gifts with each other. Without this attitude Catholic Social Teaching can become a shallow charity.
Priestly Ministry: It is in light of the gospel story of the washing of the feet that the ministry of priests makes sense in the Christian churches. Through our baptism we are all priests. We all have things to learn and things to teach. Priesthood means humble service. It is in a spirit of humble service that we preach and live the gospel and work for social change....
Prayers of Intercession
Response: God, bring us together as one people.
For all those who do not have enough to eat this evening, we pray. . .
For all those who do not have a home this evening, we pray. . .
For all those who live in fear of war, terrorism, and violence, we pray. . .
For all those who need to be set free from political and economic oppression, we pray. . .
For all those called to service, especially to service of those most in need, we pray. . .
For our church, that we may be renewed in the spirit of Jesus, we pray. . .
Thanks for sight sight that comes in Jesus insight about ourselves and the world insight about the way of Jesus the way of compassionate love.
Thanks for life and all that nourishes life the food of bread and grain, fruits and vegetables, meat and fish, milk and all proteins air and water sun and breeze earth and sea space and mystery friend and companion stranger and refugee young and old the familiar and the new.
Thanks for the life of the spirit for prayer and meditation for silence and sound for sacrament and scripture for community and tradition for poverty and wealth for wisdom shared for conversation and silence for unity and diversity.
Thanks for all the challenges for the call to act for justice to serve others to live in peace for the feelings that teach us to know ourselves and others and you to be restless for what is right to speak out for what is good to witness to what is of God.
Pope's book accuses rich nations of robbery Benedict hails Marx's analysis of modern man; Publication planned for 80th birthday John Hooper in Rome
Pope
Benedict appeared to reach out to the anti-globalisation movement
yesterday, attacking rich nations for having "plundered and sacked"
Africa and other poor regions of the world.
An extract published
from his first book since being elected pope highlighted the
passionately anti-materialistic and anti-capitalist aspects of his
thinking. Unexpectedly, the Pope also approvingly cited Karl Marx and
his analysis of contemporary man as a victim of alienation.
The
Pope's 400-page book, entitled Jesus of Nazareth, is to be published on
April 16, his 80th birthday. Yesterday the newspaper Corriere della
Sera, which is owned by the book's publishers, Rizzoli, presented a
lengthy extract. It includes Benedict's thoughts on the parable of the
Good Samaritan, who went to the aid of a traveller shunned by other
passers-by after he had been stripped and beaten by robbers. While many
commentators accuse the rich nations of not acting like the Samaritan,
the Pope goes a big step further and compares them to the thieves.
"If
we apply [the story] to the dimensions of globalised society we see how
the peoples of Africa, who have been plundered and sacked, see us from
close-up," he wrote. "Our style of life [and] the history in which we
are involved has stripped them and continues to strip them."
The
Pope wrote that the damage was not just material. "We have wounded them
spiritually too," he said. "Instead of giving them God - and thereby
welcoming in from their traditions all that is precious and great - we
have brought them the cynicism of a world without God in which only
power and profit count."
His judgment is bound to be seen as a
condemnation of colonialism. But it could also be read as a confession
of the failures of the Roman Catholic church's own missionary activity,
which often followed in the wake of conquest and colonisation.
Pope
Benedict went on to say that the poor of the developing world were not
the only people who could be regarded as victims in need of help from a
Good Samaritan. He said narcotics, people-trafficking and sex tourism
had "stripped and tormented" many, leaving them "empty even in [a world
of] material abundance".
Describing humanity's alienation, Marx
had "provided a clear image of the man who has fallen victim to
brigands". But the Pope said he had failed to get to the nub of the
issue "because he only developed his thoughts in the material sphere".
The
emptiness of modern life is a theme to which Benedict has warmed. He
told a congregation at a Palm Sunday service that "earnings, success
and career must not be the ultimate scope of life". He used the same
sermon to warn of damnation for those who took backhanders in business
or politics, saying that only those with hands not "soiled with
corruption" could expect to reach God.
In his post below, Rob writes that he is "fairly certain such people do exist"--that is, people who support gay marriage and also believe that
(1) marriage is not an outdated institution, (2) divorce should be made
harder to get, (3) adultery should be discouraged and perhaps penalized
in some fashion, (4) it is better for children to be born within
marriage than without, (5) it is better for a committed couple to get
married than to stay unmarried, (6) it is better for children to be
raised by two parents rather than one, and so on.
You're right, Rob: Such people do exist. I am one. So is my wife, Sarah. We know many others. David Blankenhorn has been in the trenches too long.
Last week I posted Dale Carpenter's critique of David Blankenhorn's new book, The Future of Marriage. Carpenter made two basic points: first, the correlation between countries' embrace of gay marriage and the weakening of marriage as a social institution does not establish causation between those two phenomena; second, Blankenhorn's quotation of gay marriage supporters who would like to destroy marriage as a social institution does not mean that the entire movement for gay marriage is premised on a desire to destroy marriage as a social institution. Now Blankenhorn responds to Carpenter's critique. On the correlation vs. causation point, Blankenhorn writes:
Here is a causal assertion: Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. But wait a minute! Do all cigarette smokers get lung cancer? Is everyone who gets lung cancer a smoker? Of course not. So all we have is a correlation. There is no beyond-any-doubt proof of causation. Therefore, it is illegitimate for anyone to suggest that smoking causes lung cancer. See how easy it is? The tobacco industry made this exact argument for many decades, and some in the industry still do make this ludicrous claim.
It is ludicrous because our common sense observations in many societies over many decades, backed up by a great number of careful studies, have convinced almost everyone by now that the demonstrated correlations between smoking and lung cancer are not spurious or merely coincidental, but in fact are causal.
In my article, I lay out new evidence strongly suggesting that, around the world, a cluster of marriage-weakening trends and attitudes (one of which is the embrace of gay marriage) hang together and appear to be mutually reinforcing. No, I cannot prove causation beyond any doubt (no one could); and no, scholars cannot measure with scientific precision the exact degrees and instrumentalities of causation. But to me, the evidence suggesting mutual reinforcement, a kind of syndrome of related attitudes and behaviors — i.e., evidence suggesting some form of causation — is quite persuasive. Carpenter is free to disagree, of course, but to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than simply repeat back to me that correlation does not prove causation.
I agree that statistical correlation should not necessarily preclude public policy conclusions, but I'm not sure that the comparison to smoking helps Blankenhorn's case much. We have some understanding of the paths by which smoking actually leads to cancer. It has never been made clear (at least to me) what the path is by which gay marriage will lead to the end of marriage as a social institution. Undoubtedly, it will change the nature of marriage, but that's a different question.
As for the second point, Carpenter asserted that "many conservative supporters of gay marriage" also believe that:
(1) marriage is not an outdated institution, (2) divorce should be made harder to get, (3) adultery should be discouraged and perhaps penalized in some fashion, (4) it is better for children to be born within marriage than without, (5) it is better for a committed couple to get married than to stay unmarried, (6) it is better for children to be raised by two parents rather than one, and so on.
Blankenhorn asks Carpenter to name one supporter of gay marriage who holds those beliefs, explaining: "I am not saying that no such person exists. But, to the best of my knowledge, I have never come across such a person." I'm fairly certain that such people do exist. Indeed, I thought the whole reason why Blankenhorn's Institute for American Values issued Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles without addressing gay marriage is because many of the signatory scholars wanted to speak in support of marriage as a social institution without condemning gay marriage. Here's an excerpt from that document's executive summary:
We do not all agree on individual issues, from the best way to reform unilateral divorce to whether and how the law should be altered to benefit same-sex couples. We do agree that the conceptual models of marriage used by many advocates are inadequate and thus contribute to the erosion of a marriage culture in the United States. We seek to work across the divisive issue of gay marriage to affirm the basic importance of marriage to our children and to our society. We call on all the makers of family law -- legislators, judges, the family law bar, and legal scholars who create the climate in which other players operate -- to develop a deeper understanding of and commitment to marriage as a social institution.
Peter Johnston , Tilting at Windmills, Tuesday, April 3, 2007
No one is pro-death. No one is anti-choice. Yet both sides of the abortion debate consider the other side absurd. Why?
The pro-choicer considers pregnancy the construction of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the construction of a car in a factory. The relevant question in the comparison is this: At what point in the construction process does the object under construction become a car? Some may say that it is when the object receives an engine. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels quickening. Others might say that the object becomes a car when it has an engine, axles and wheels, and the capacity to move. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels viability. And some may hold out and claim that the object isn’t really a car until it rolls out of the factory, paralleling birth.
But all who consider the question are certain that at the very beginning stages of construction, when only a few scraps of metal and a few bolts are in place, the object under construction is not a car. Similarly, if pregnancy is the construction of a human person, then at the early stages of pregnancy the embryo is clearly not a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: People disagree when a fetus becomes a person, but all agree that an embryo is not, so abortion is justified early in pregnancy and debatable only later on. From this point of view, pro-lifers seem irrational, for they try to legislate upon the absurd idea that an embryo is a person. And because the pro-life position is often expressed in religious terms, pro-lifers seem to consider an irrational religious dogma the basis for public policy.
The pro-lifer does not consider pregnancy the construction of a human person. Rather, he considers it the development of a human person. Compare pregnancy, for a moment, to the development of a Polaroid photograph. The camera clicks, setting off a chain reaction of chemicals on photographic paper. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels conception. If someone were to wipe the chemicals away, saying that the image was only a potential photograph, he would seem crazy; he cut short the development of a uniquely existing photograph with an essential nature. In the analogy to pregnancy, this parallels abortion.
At what point in the process does the developing image become a photograph? The image of the photograph is not immediately apparent, but is revealed and develops over time. All agree, then, that the undeveloped photograph is very dissimilar from the developed photograph. Nevertheless, the undeveloped photograph is still a photograph. Similarly, if pregnancy is the development of a human person, an embryo, though at an early stage of development, is still a human person. The consequence for abortion policy: After conception, abortion is unjustified because it cuts short the natural development of a human person. From this point of view, pro-choicers seem irrational in asserting that an embryo is not a human person and dangerous in allowing its destruction. And because the pro-choice position seems so destructive, pro-lifers make abortion a litmus test and invoke divine aid to combat such evil.
The central difference between the pro-choice and pro-life position, as first stated by Valparaiso law professor Richard Stith, is the subtle dichotomy between pregnancy as construction and pregnancy as development. Pro-choicers continue to assert the inviolability of choice, and pro-lifers continue to assert the inviolability of life, but that discussion is largely meaningless, for nobody rejects choice or life in itself. The question that should dominate debate is whether pregnancy is a process of construction or a process of development. If pro-choicers can convince pro-lifers that pregnancy is the construction of a human person, pro-lifers should accommodate themselves to existing abortion policy. On the other hand, if pro-lifers can convince pro-choicers that pregnancy is the development of a human person, pro-choicers should abandon abortion rights.
Pro-choicers are often uninterested in debate because they feel that they cannot appeal to reason, that the pro-life argument is essentially religious and irrational. Pro-lifers are often uninterested in debate because they feel that the justification for abortion clouds rationality itself. But the exposition above reveals that neither side of the abortion debate is irrational. Instead, pro-choicers and pro-lifers begin with different presuppositions from which their respective conclusions follow.
While both sides are rational, only one side can be right. If pregnancy is the construction of a human person, our society is infringing upon the reproductive freedom of women by stigmatizing early-term abortion and threatening more restrictive legislation. If pregnancy is the development of a human person, our society is legally allowing the killing of innocent human persons. In either case, society is messing up. It is now the duty of intellectuals on both sides to open their minds and address the issue afresh.
Thanks to Rick for posting Fr. Williams' interesting op-ed linking the U.S. Bishops' condemnation of Daniel Maguire's teaching with a reinvigorated subsidiarity. I occasionally encounter resistance from students on subsidiarity that runs along the lines of -- "why should we respect the Church's insistence on a principle that it ignores in its own operation?" Part of the answer, as Patrick would emphasize, arises from a proper understanding of what a body's given responsibility is, and some responsibilities are given to Rome. (Of course, the debate over whether a responsibility has been given by God or grabbed by humans is not always easy to resolve. Who gets to decide which gifts have been given to which body?) Still, I thought about subsidiarity while reading Sacramentum Caritatis. For example, Pope Benedict instructs us that the exchange of peace should be restricted "to one's immediate neighbours." Perhaps the pope is prudently charged with instruction on all things related to the Eucharist, but it strikes me as a relatively minor example of practices that breed the over-centralization charge.
Over at the wonderful Get Religion blog, Mollie Ziegler comments on recent news coverage of churches' struggles over what to do with child molesters in their congregations. Here's the opening:
It seems to me that the only crime for which there is no forgiveness in our society is child molestation. It is certainly horrible to assault a helpless child, and I’m glad that the practice is shunned. . . . But when I consider the shunning from the perspective of the child molester, I wonder how they’re able to even try to get better. Their picture, name and address are publicly available for all people to investigate. They have limitations on where they can live. They live in a society that tends to think improvement in this area is impossible, or only possible through castration and complete abstention from all contact with children.
Congregations do not turn a blind eye to child molesters in their midst, given the obvious safety concerns. One of the churches profiled is the United Church of Christ, which prides itself on inclusiveness. In this case, though, "the sex molesters are not only considered sinful by some congregants — but perpetually and possibly irretrievably so."
In the most recent issue of America, Notre Dame Law professor Robert E. Rodes, Jr. urges those concerned with moral standards in public life to focus on the erosion of respect for chastity as a normative virtue. Here is a snapshot:
[The] erosion of respect for chastity is not peculiar to the law, nor is the law its principal cause. But of all the social forces affecting the perception of chastity, the law is the only one over which society has significant control. The power of the law as a force of moral persuasion should be exercised toward restoring chastity as a broadly accepted moral standard. The current erosion of respect for chastity has led to a wholesale trivialization of sex in our society. And where sex is trivialized, the human person is trivialized as well.
Professor Rodes does not advocate punishing illicit sex, but rather asserts that the law "can and should encourage those who opt for chastity and offer guidance to those who confront its challenges."
This seems like a good forum in which to offer suggestions for how the law might do so.
Any thoughts from MOJ's subsidiarity gurus on this piece, "All Church Politics Is Local," by Fr. Thomas Williams? Commenting on a recent statement by the U.S. Bishops Committee on Doctrine to the effect that two pamphlets published by Professor Daniel Maguire of Marquette University “do not present authentic Catholic teaching," Fr. Williams writes:
So why is the declaration by the bishops’ committee significant? More than simply restating traditional Catholic teaching in rebuke of a minor dissident, it represents a reanimation of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity as applied to Church governance. By offering a local solution to a local problem, the statement takes a step toward restoring a healthy balance between local and central authority.
For years, Church officials from across the political spectrum have lamented a creeping centralization within the Catholic Church. The Roman Curia has been accused of being overly interventionist and power-hungry, dipping into local problems that could be better handled at a lower level. At the same time, Curial officials have insisted that they don’t want to have to rein in every maverick theologian and doctrinal dissident, and only do so when the local church authorities either ask them to intervene or simply fail to do their job.
As Cardinal Walter Kasper wrote in the April 23, 2001 issue of Jesuit-run America magazine, over-centralization in the Catholic Church cannot be blamed exclusively on the Roman Curia. The local churches themselves promote centralization, he wrote, “whenever they abdicate their responsibility and turn to Rome for a decision — a ruse to evade their duty and find cover behind a superior order.”
