In the Catholic Social Tradition, "family" matters. Not merely as a code or short-hand for a certain set of policies, but as a pre-political (and political) institution, a structural safeguard of freedom and promoter of human flourishing. So, those who read this blog might be interested in Prof. Robert Ellickson's new paper, "Unpacking the Hearth," which -- I'm quoting Ethan Lieb -- argues that "it is good to keep the law out of the hearth because people in liberal societies are pretty good at self-organization and find optimal living situations in households without too much recourse to legal institutions. We consort with intimates -- and it is bad to contract with our intimates because it is not efficient and it debases those relationships."
Here's Prof. Ellickson's abstract:
As Aristotle recognized in The Politics, the household is an indispensable building block of social, economic, and political life. A liberal society grants its citizens far wider berth to arrange their households than to choose their familial and marital relationships. Legal commentators, however, have devoted far more attention to the family and to marriage than to the household as such. To unpack the household, this Article applies transaction cost economics and sociological theory to interactions among household participants. It explores questions such as the structure of ownership of dwelling units, the scope of household production, and the governance of activities around the hearth. Drawing on a wide variety of historical and statistical sources, the Article contrasts conventional family-based households with arrangements in, among others, medieval English castles, Benedictine monasteries, and Israeli kibbutzim.
A household is likely to involve several participants and as many as three distinct relationships--that among occupants, that among owners, and that between these two groups (the landlord-tenant relationship). Individuals, when structuring these home relationships, typically pursue a strategy of consorting with intimates. This facilitates informal coordination and greatly reduces the transaction costs of domestic interactions. Utopian critics, however, have sought to enlarge the scale of households, and some legal advocates have urged household members to write formal contracts and take disputes into court. These commentators fail to appreciate the great advantages, in the home setting, of informally associating with a few trustworthy intimates.
Prof. Ellickson was one of the best teachers I've ever had. I cannot wait to read this paper.
Rudy to pro-lifer: drop dead By Maggie Gallagher Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Thirty-eight
percent for Rudy; 16 percent for McCain. On the surface, the latest
Gallup Poll of GOP voters is great news for the Giuliani campaign. Mitt
Romney scored just 6 percent, less than Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich
(10 percent each) -- two guys who aren't even officially in the race.
But the apparent collapse of the McCain candidacy
(it's early yet) may end up being a problem for Rudy. Deep distrust of
McCain as the designated GOP front-runner has to some extent shielded
Rudy Giuliani from the focused opposition of social conservatives.
Personally, I know I tried really hard to find a way
to make the match work. But it takes two to tango, and Rudy's clearly
not interested in meeting anyone -- not me, not most of his spouses,
not his son -- halfway. Or a quarter of the way. In fact, being Rudy,
he's not budging a step. All the deep-seated longing for rapprochement
clearly runs in only one direction.
I'm not sure Rudy gets it: Big and strong is good, but
only if it's used on our behalf and not against us. A big strong guy
who just doesn't care what you think is scary, not reassuring. The same
Rudy who cleaned up the mean streets of New York is the same Rudy who
used his leadership abilities to dump his wife via a press conference
and then tried to make the rest of us feel ashamed for caring about how
he treats his family. It's the same Rudy who came out swinging to
defend his new wife (whom he clearly loves) and left his son slowly
twisting in the wind with dying hopes of some attention from his dad.
That's the same Rudy who last week endorsed public funding of abortions
as a constitutional right, thus killing two birds of hope with one
stone.
In 1989, Rudy stated "there must be public funding of
abortions" and criticized President George H.W. Bush for vetoing
federal funding for abortions. Asked by CNN if this remains his
position, he said: "Probably ... Generally, that's my view." When
asked, "Would you support public funding for abortion?" Rudy answered,
"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes."
Ultimately, he said that if it's a constitutional right, you have to
provide public funding to make sure poor women can do it.
As the editors of National Review recently pointed
out, this "makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense." No
statements issued afterward by campaign spokespeople can undo the
revelations of the way this candidate actually thinks and how he will
govern.
Put the abortion issue aside for a moment, and think
about what Giuliani has just revealed about how he thinks of the
Constitution: If you believe in the First Amendment, does the
government have to buy poor people printing presses? If you believe in
the Second Amendment, must the taxpayers buy guns for poor folks? What
kind of "strict constructionist" would say the government must pay for
something if it is a constitutional right? For that matter, what kind
of fiscal conservative would ever make such a claim?
Rudy Giuliani has now made it perfectly clear:
Electing him for president (given a Democratic Congress) will likely
mean taxpayer-funded abortions and Supreme Court justices with some
truly odd and unreliable views of our Constitution. No pro-lifer in
good conscience can vote for Rudy.
So what are people like me supposed to do? "I'm
comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me," Rudy said in South
Carolina last week.
Catholic League president Bill
Donohue commented today on presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani’s recent
statement on abortion, and Senator Bob Casey’s position on embryonic stem cell
research:
“Catholics who accept the
teachings of the Catholic Church on the life issues have every reason to be
angry with Rudy Giuliani’s pledge to maintain taxpayer-funded abortions if
elected president. His overall position on abortion is incoherent. He says he
is now opposed to partial-birth abortion except to save the life of the mother,
would appoint ‘strict constructionist’ judges and says he personally ‘hates’
abortion.
“Giuliani has no need to qualify
his opposition to partial-birth abortion: the American Medical Association has
determined that there is never a medical need for this type of abortion.
Moreover, if he appoints the kinds of judges he says he will appoint, it is not
likely they will uphold the wholly contrived right to abortion-on-demand. So
why not simply say that Roe v. Wade invented a right that nowhere
appears in the Constitution? And if he ‘hates’ abortion, what exactly is it
that he hates about it? And why does he want to impose on the public the burden
of paying for something that is constitutionally suspect and morally repugnant?
“When running for the senate seat
in Pennsylvania, Casey would not
commit on how he would vote on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
Now he says he’s against it. This is good news. It makes it all the more
difficult for him to later renege on his pro-life position on abortion, and
thus should be welcomed by practicing Catholics in both parties.
“Catholics look to people like
Giuliani and Casey to promote a culture of life. Giuliani’s mixed signals are
in need of repair. Casey is off to a good start.”
If you find yourself in the Austin, Texas tomorrow, Saturday, April 14, check out the Christian Scholars Forum, which will be held from 11am-5pm in the Quadrangle Room of the Texas Union at the University of Texas. MOJ friend and Baylor professor, Francis Beckwith will give the keynote. His lecture is entitled "Courting Prejudice: How Judges Unjustly Burden Believers' Civic Participation By the `Religious Motive' Test." A group of UT law students have formed a panel to discuss "Christianity and Contemporary Legal Issues" at this one day conference. For more information: click here.
Yesterday's "Mediation of the Day" from Magnificat was a great reflection for this Easter season. It's from Giuseppe Ricciotti, identified as "a highly respected Italian Scripture scholar" who died in 1964.
Certain it is that Jesus is today more alive than ever among us. All have need of him, either to love him or to curse him, but they cannot do without him. Many people in the past have been loved with extreme intensity -- Socrates by his disciples, Julius Caesar by his legionaries, Napoleon by his soldiers. But today they belong irrevocably to the past; not a heart beats at their memory. There is no one who would give his life or even his possessions for them even though their ideals are still being advocated. And when their ideals are opposed, no one ever thinks of cursing Socrates or Julius Caesar or Napoleon, because their personalities no longer have any influence; they are bygones. But not Jesus; Jesus is still loved, and he is still cursed; people still renounce their possessions and even their lives both for love of him and out of hatred for him.
Something in Fr. Neuhaus's Public Square Column in the March issue of First Things made me think of Rob's questions about whether Christian lawyers are all called to be prophets, and what that might mean. Neuhaus quotes Christopher Levenick's review in the Claremont Review of a series of recent books (by Jimmy Carter, Michael Lerner, Robin Meyers, Dan Wakefield, and Jim Wallis) "attacking conservative Christians in public life." Levenick apparently criticizes the self-righteous tone of these books, writing:
"Perhaps [more reflection on moral ambiguities] will remind them that we are pilgrims more than prophets, that we pass through this City of Man as strangers in a strange land, longing for and ultimately arriving, we pray, in the City of God. And until we achieve that distant Kingdon, we will do best to recognize each other's good intentions, offer one another patient correction, and pray for our mutual betterment and withal follow the counsel of Micah, to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God."
Fr. Neuhaus then adds:
And it may be that you cannot always do all three at once. There is, I would suggest, an ordering of imperatives in Micah's counsel. When you do not know what justice requires, or cannot do what you believe justice requires, then at least love mercy; and when you discover, as you inevitably will, how difficult is such love, then, at the very least, walk humbly with God.
Maybe too much focus on forming lawyers to be "prophets" ignores the rest of those imperatives -- loving mercy and the humble walk with God?
Over at PrawfsBlawg, Paul Horwitz comments on Monica Goodling and Regent's religious identity (see our previous discussion here and here). An excerpt:
But one may fairly worry -- for the school's sake, not ours -- about the high-wire act involved in living out a religious mission in the political realm. This administration's highest desideratum seems to be personal loyalty to the President. I confess to the view that personal loyalty is either not a virtue at all, or not a very high virtue. But even if I am wrong about that, it is a quality that may come into tension with higher and broader values that I take it that Regent graduates at their best should personify. The school itself understands this on a personal level, I think; the Globe story quotes one student saying of Goodling that she is a poor representative of Regent because "you should be morally upright. You should not be in a position where you have to plead the Fifth." Whether its administrators always take a similar view, or whether they ultimately are seduced by the lure of power itself, is another question. It seems to me that the school might seek other numbers besides the number of its graduates serving in the administration. What about boasting about the number of whistle-blowers it has produced? Or the number of people who have stood in the way of senior officials and said "no" to unwise or immoral ideas? Or the number of people who have resigned in protest from some high position? I am thus sympathetic to the school's stated goals of sending its graduates to live out a Christ-centered life in public service, but hope they will spend as much time celebrating their martyrs as they do those who have gained influence in high places.
The annual meeting/conference of University Faculty for Life (UFL) will be held at Villanova on June 1-3, 2007. This year's conference, which is being supported by Our Sunday Visitor Institute and Ave Maria School of Law, is being organized by Jeanne (Heffernan) Schindler from Villanova. This year's conference should be excellent. The speakers will include Helen Alvare, David L. Schindler, and John Keown. The call for papers (and other conference information) is available on the UFL website. I hope to see many of you there.
This weekend (Thurs-Sat), the University of Portland's Garaventa Center for Catholic Intellectual Life and Culture is hosting a conference, "The American Experiment in Religious Freedom." Justice Scalia is delivering the keynote address, and presenters include: Judge John Noonan, Kevin Hasson, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Jean Bethke Elshtain, the lovely and talented Nicole Stelle Garnett, MOJ-pals Michael Moreland and John O'Callaghan, and many, many others. Check it out.
