I've been traveling for the past two weeks, which explains my lack of
posts. A couple of weekends ago I was in Cuba to meet with Oswaldo
Paya, a pro-democracy activist and the man behind the Varela Project,
an ingenious petition drive that sought to take advantage of a
provision of the 1976 socialist constitution to push for peaceful
political reform in Cuba.
During
my visit, we spoke at some length about the role of the Church in Cuba,
a topic on which I have posted in the past. Although Paya is a
committed Catholic, his opinion of the approach the hierarchy (both at
the Vatican and in Cuba) has taken towards the Castro government and,
by extension, towards dissidents in Cuba, was not a favorable one. The
Church has been so eager to avoid persecution in Cuba that it has bent
over backwards in recent years to avoid confrontation with the Castro
government and has distanced itself from dissident groups on the island.
This
is in some ways similar to the approach the hierarchy has often taken
towards repressive right-wing governments in Latin America. And it is
scandalous in both instances. Critics of the Church's political role
in Latin America have sometimes attributed its comfort with reactionary
regimes to its opposition to communism. But Cuba stands as a
counter-point. Here we have a fairly doctrinaire communist regime -- a
regime whose policies clearly contradict the Church's teachings on the
inhumanity of communism -- and the Church's stance is one of
accommodation. What seems to unite the Church's position, both in Cuba
and elsewhere, is a desire for stability and a fear of disrupting the
status quo.
I am not suggesting that the Church should involve
itself directly in a movement for political change in Cuba. There are,
however, many steps the Church could take short of direct political
engagement. The Church might, for example, provide dissidents with
access to means of communication, both within Cuba and between Cuba and
the outside world. I do not want to try to speak for him, but Paya
seemed clearly frustrated that one of the few private spaces in Cuba,
one of the few remaining independent institutions in an eviscerated
Cuban civil society, has essentially shut its doors to groups calling
for political reform on the island.
National Review Online is hosting a symposium of sorts, responding to Anna Quindlen's claim that, with respect to the question of criminalizing abortion, “there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can’t have it both ways.” Here is what I contributed:
In “How Much Jail Time,” Anna Quindlen contends that, with respect to the question whether abortion should be criminalized, “there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second.” No, you don’t.
The point of criminalization, after all, is not merely to put people in prison, or deter people from engaging in harmful behavior. It is, instead, to make a statement — a public statement, in the community’s voice — that certain actions, or certain harms caused, are morally blameworthy. It is simply not the case that time in prison is the only way, or always the best way, to convey this social judgment.
It is this judgment — and not the particular way it is expressed, or even the consequences that follow — that best distinguishes the workings of the criminal law from, say, the law that governs compensation for accidents. And, it is not “hypocritical” — nor, contrary to Ms. Quindlen’s suggestion, does it “ignor[e]” or “infantaliz[e]” women — to think that the law may, and even should, give tangible expression to our commitment to the dignity of every human person — including unborn children — in ways that do not require prison terms for women who have abortions, or that treat them differently from doctors who perform abortions.
Regular MOJ readers know that I am of the view that the freedom of the Church in China is among the most salient and important religious-freedom matters today. That said, here is an interesting interview with Cardinal Zen, conducted by Rafaela Schmid, posted over at the First Things blog. Among other things, Cardinal Zen discusses the Pope's recent letter to China's Catholics, and the future of the so-called Patriotic Association.
