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.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Time for the unpopular -- and, for a change, a little joy

The Sept. 10 issue of America magazine includes a courageous cover story by Wilson Miscamble, CSC, titled "The Faculty 'Problem': How Can Catholic Identity Be Preserved?"  Miscamble is professor of history at Notre Dame, and what he has published in "The National Catholic Weekly" is a lawyer's brief arguing that Notre Dame has lost -- or is about to lose -- its claim to be a meaningfully "Catholic" university and calling for the action that is necessary to stop what is in fact not an inevitable loss of identity.  Miscamble also draws the lessons for places that haven't been as blessed with fidelity as Notre Dame has been:  Notre Dame, and other historically Catholic universities, can choose to remain, or to become again, Catholic, but it's a choice, a choice that would involve a lot of hard and frequently unpopular work.  When a member of the sponsoring religious order publicly questions whether Notre Dame, of all places, is going to end up Catholic and does so, as Miscamble has, in measured but strong terms, it's at last time to pay attention.  As one friend put it to me:  "Miscamble shows exactly how the store gets sold."

Miscamble makes the case that the right faculty hiring is absolutely essential to creating and maintaing a school's Catholic identity.  He also argues that, in the present circumstances of departments and units that are indifferent or even hostile to mission, presidents and provosts and boards of trustees must sit up straight, put down their coffee cups, slide the honorific paper weights to one side of the well-varnished desk, and do something, even something unpopular:  "It must be understood . . . that this is not a matter that can be massaged by minor measures.  The temptation for administrators is to hope that a little adjustment here and a bit of tinkering there might improve the situation without stirring faculty opposition.  Settling for minor measures in the present circumstances, however, indicates a complicity in the secularization process.  A major change in the hiring process is required, and the need for it must be approved at the level of the board of trustees and implemented with courageous leadership, whatever faculty resistance it generates." 

The opposition to Catholic universities' actually being (or becoming again) Catholic comes in many forms and from many quarters -- and, to be sure, there's no Platonic form of the Catholic university.  Many of us in "Catholic" law schools are familiar with the internal opposition that is pure, old-fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry, the more subtle but monstrously crude opposition that supposes that Catholics can't be smart (and that people who haven't gone to the short list of schools, which of course includes no Catholic places, aren't good enough), and the contented, supine opposition that says "I go to Mass on Sundays, say the creed, support my parish, and the rest, but my faith -- and yours -- has nothing to do with providing professional education."  Some of us are also blessed to be familiar with deans and colleagues (not all of them Catholics!) who take the work of building inclusive Catholic places of higher education to heart.  But, if Miscamble is right, those of us in the classrooms and in the departments need help from above.

The observation that what presidents, provosts, and boards must do will be unpleasant because unpopular should not be allowed to obscure the end goal, and one dimension of it in particular.  Catholic Christians living or working together in inclusive communities can be expected to be people of joy, the joy that attends believing in and sharing the Good News.  Mary Ann Glendon exemplifies this when, in answer to the question "Why are you still a Catholic?", she replied (in print): "I love being Catholic!"  The work of building Catholic universities depends for its success on people who, loving their faith and Church and their God, can show by their joy and generosity that the work is attractive, even compelling.  Catholic institutions don't get built without self-sacrifice on the part of the builders.      

    

         

Abortion In The Philippines

New York Times
September 5, 2007

Abortion In The Philippines: A National Secret

MANILA (Reuters) - Minda is a masseuse with a difference. Her caress is used to abort fetuses.

The 50-year-old grandmother has lost count of the number of pregnancies she has terminated in this largely Roman Catholic country where abortion is illegal and strictly taboo, but where about half a million women end their pregnancies every year.

The backstreet abortions performed by healers like Minda may become more common as a United States government aid program plans to stop distributing contraceptives in the Philippines in 2008. This will leave birth control up to the government which under the influence of Catholic bishops advocates unreliable natural birth control methods rather than the pill and condoms.

[To read the rest, click here.]

Mother Teresa

New York Times
September 5, 2007

Editorial

A Saint of Darkness

To the extent people ever tried to project themselves into the mind of Mother Teresa, they might have pictured a Gothic vault washed in dazzling beams of saintly conviction. How startling to discover that it was a dark and dispirited place, littered with doubts.

A new book of her letters, “Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light,” published by Doubleday, show her struggling for decades against disbelief. “If I ever become a saint,” she wrote in one letter, “I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ ” And in another: “If there be no God — there can be no soul. If there is no soul then Jesus — You also are not true. Heaven, what emptiness.”

That may rattle some believers, but it is a welcome reminder that saints, too, are only human, and that stories of dauntless piety tend to be false. The letters — which Mother Teresa wanted destroyed — may help chip away at the lacquer of myth that has been adhering to her since well before her death in 1997.

They reveal, too, a cannily willful nun, who tested the limits of her vow of strict obedience in her campaign to win permission to leave her order, the Loreto Sisters, to found the Missionaries of Charity, with the radical goal of going outside convent walls to live among the poor of Calcutta’s slums. “Please let me go,” she wrote in one of many insistent letters to her archbishop. “If the work be all human, it will die with me, if it be all His it will live for ages to come. Souls are being lost in the meantime.”

When the archbishop relented, the rest became history, until the revelation of the pain that haunted her down the decades.

“I think there is no suffering greater than what is caused by the doubts of those who want to believe,” wrote Flannery O’Connor, the Roman Catholic author whose stories traverse the landscape of 20th-century unbelief. “What people don’t realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is the cross. It is much harder to believe than not to believe.”

O’Connor suffered from isolation and debilitating illness, Mother Teresa from decades of spiritual emptiness. But — and here is the exemplary part, inspiring even by the standards of a secular age — they both shut up about it and got on with their work. Mother Teresa, sick with longing for a sense of the divine, kept faith with the sick of Calcutta. And now, dead for 10 years, she is poised to reach those who can at last recognize, in her, something of their own doubting, conflicted selves.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

The Tablet
September 1, 2007

Outlook from the Outback

Stephen Crittenden

 A devastating critique of the Catholic Church in Australia recently published by one of the country's most respected bishops has ignited debate about its future and pushed the progressive majority of the Church back to prominence after years in the shadows

Like the rural horizons of Australia after the worst drought in 100 years, the Australian Church is tinder dry, and a retired auxiliary Bishop of Sydney, Geoffrey Robinson, may have lit the match. His new book, Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: reclaiming the spirit of Jesus (John Garrett Publishing, Melbourne), accuses the leadership of the Catholic Church of treating the clerical sexual crisis as something to be "managed" in the hope that it will go away and never be referred to again. He says that until it confronts the root causes of this crisis, the Church will continue to be crippled.

One of the most intelligent and capable of the Australian bishops, Geoffrey Robinson, 70, is a former lecturer in canon law and was seen by many as the logical successor to Cardinal Ted Clancy as Archbishop of Sydney. Erudite, shy, rather unsmiling, and certainly no wishy-washy liberal, he is esteemed by Australian Catholics for his integrity in coordinating the Church's national response to the abuse crisis in the late 1990s. I interviewed him for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at that time, and his bleak and careworn demeanour left a deep impression.

Thanks to this book, we now know that he was struggling both with his own sexual abuse as a boy and his mounting frustration at Rome's silence and lack of support in relation to the crisis: "I eventually came to the point where I felt that, with the thoughts that were running through my head, I could no longer be a bishop of a Church about which I had such profound reservations."

[To read the rest, click here.]

Take a listen to this ...

Listen to what MOJ-reader and legal philosopher Steve Smith has to say about law's quandary, contemporary jurisprudence, and his book Law's Quandary.

Click here.

Human-Animal Hybrids

Reuters reports that "British regulators will decide on Wednesday whether to permit the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos for research into illnesses such as Parkinson's, Motor Neurone Disease and Alzheimer's."  For the full article, click here.

The Human Subject and the Foundation of Human Rights

A few days ago, Michael Perry posted the following quote from philosopher Charles Taylor:

"[M]odern culture, in breaking with the structures and beliefs of Christendom, also carried certain facets of Christian life further than they ever were taken or could have been taken within Christendom.  In relation to the earlier forms of Christian culture, we have to face the humbling realization that the breakout was a necessary condition of the development."

I don’t know whether the “breakout was a necessary condition of the development” (I need to study the argument and evidence further to make an informed judgment), but I have no doubt that, in the development of human rights, modernity has made some positive contributions and that those contributions ought to be humbly recognized by all, including those within the Church.  My focus in this thread does not contradict Taylor’s thesis.  Instead, I have suggested, here and here, that the beginnings of modern human rights thinking occur within Christian Europe pre-Enlightenment.

I have also suggested that for whatever its contributions, modern secular culture has too thin of a conception of the human person to sustain and support the human rights project in the long term. On that score, I ran across this passage this morning:

“The problem of the subjectivity of the human being is a problem of paramount philosophical importance today. … The philosophy of consciousness [a product of modern culture, no?] would have us believe that it first discovered the human subject.  The philosophy of being [rooted in an older pre-Enlightenment tradition, no?] is prepared to demonstrate that quite the opposite is true, that in fact an analysis of pure consciousness leads inevitably to an annihilation of the subject.”

Karol Wojtyla, The Person:  Subject and Community, in Catholic Thought from Lublin:  Person and Community 219-220 (1993).

More on the Foundation of Human Rights

Jonathon Watson responds to our continuing discussion here and here on the foundation of human rights with this:

"[A]ll base desires we have as Created beings are good,and as Christians, we believe that those desires are placed there by a Creator to lead to certain ends. The desire for justice is very powerful - indeed, so much so that Christ warned against allowing this desire to shade into vengeance. But following Christ carries with it even greater demands. Not only must we not exact vengeance, but we must work always to avoid even the desire for vengeance. Thinking about desires rightly ordered, it seems to me, is one of the developments of Christian legal theory - what the law must do is warn not only what act might not be taken externally, but to show that such an act is always and everywhere evil, and that to contemplate such an act shows in and of itself a disordered desire.

    Christianity seeks nothing less than the perfection of the person in Christ. The Christian is aware that he / she cannot achieve such a thing on his or her own volition, but must always resort to Grace, in the end, to attempt such a feat - in other words, to rightly order every desire to it's proper end in God. And this, in the end, is the debate not only of Christian legal theory, but of any Christian discussion - how shall the desire I feel for x or y be rightly ordered - what is the end it serves? Is it God, or mammon? To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, every choice we make to order these desires is in one direction or another - to something which if we saw it now, we would strongly be tempted to worship, or a horror which we would never have seen, even in our darkest nightmare. We do indeed argue about the contents of such rights, but we have before us the examples of Christ's words, and the development of Tradition of the Church (as again noted by Prof. Reid), and almost always agree that there are certain boundaries which may not be crossed. (We have the example of early Christians, and Romans who encountered them, noting that the practice of infanticide was nearly nil among them.)
    And this, then, is the trouble the athiest faces. Not only must the athiest define desires and why we have them, but must also place them in a heirarchy, the framework mentioned, and show the end to which they lead. There must be an end - a reason for the desire - for human rights is a project, a series of laws ever changing, and if the athiest denies that there is an end to human rights - a reason for their existence - he or she must also deny that they have a direction, an idea of how the law ought to change and why, if at all to lead to greater human rights."

Excluding Religion

Nelson Tebbe's new article, Excluding Religion, may be of interest to MoJ readers.  Here's the abstract:

This Article considers a pressing issue in the constitutional law of religious freedom: whether government may single out religious actors and entities for exclusion from its support programs. Although the problem of selective exclusion is generating intense interest in lower courts and in informal discussions among scholars, so far the academic literature has not kept pace. Excluding Religion argues that generally government ought to be able to target religious actors and entities for denial of support, although the Article carefully circumscribes that power by delineating a set of principled limits. It concludes by developing a theoretical framework for considering the broader question of whether and when a liberal democracy may influence the decisions of private citizens concerning matters of conscience.

Fordham Center on Religion and Culture

18 September 2007, 6–8 p.m.
Fordham University • Pope Auditorium
113 West 60th Street • New York City

By September, the U.S. "surge" will have had over six months to make its mark. At that point what moral principles regarding war, peace and intervention will be applicable, and what will they dictate about future U.S. policy toward Iraq?

Four distinguished ethicists with different perspectives--Michael Walzer, Sohail Hashmi, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Gerard Powers--will frame the choices the nation faces. Trudy Rubin, veteran foreign affairs columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, will moderate.

Free and Open to the Public.

This Headline Forum will build on a major 2005 Fordham Center on Religion and Culture conference, "The Ethics of Exit," which examined the conditions for the morality of withdrawal from Iraq.

Read the transcript at: www.fordham.edu/religculture

Cosponsors:
The Fordham Center on Religion and Culture
Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

R.S.V.P. [email protected] (212) 636-7347