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.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

The Commonweal Editorial: “Crisis” Averted

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Once again, I’d like to thank Michael P. for his posting the excerpt from the recent Commonweal editorial. Interestingly, I had read and reflected upon the content of the editorial along with Dr. Scott Appleby’s essay on the American Modernists early yesterday morning. For what it is worth, readers of Mirror of Justice may find it useful to know that I read Commonweal, First Things, America, the two NCRs (National Catholic Reporter and National Catholic Register), The Tablet, and Crisis, amongst other periodicals. It might be said that my reading fare is catholic. But I digress.

I found several remarks in the editorial to which Michael referenced arresting. The first is the phrase “faithful Catholics” that was placed in quotation marks by the author(s) of this particular editorial to affirm, I suppose, the fidelity of those who disagree with Church teachings on subjects such as ordination, artificial contraception, and the nature of the papacy. This assertion can lead other members of the faithful to believe that the Church’s teachings on these issues, and perhaps other matters, are flexible or ambiguous. I do not think that the Church’s teachings on these topics are as accommodating or indefinite as the editorial would imply with its juxtaposition of the phrase “faithful Catholics.” While Church teachings may be more flexible or less clear on other matters, they are not on these.

This brings me to the distinction that the editorial makes between “open and respectful disagreement” and “suppression.” There is the circumstance in which the heterodox remove themselves from full communion with the Church, and it would be a mistake to conclude, as the editorial did, that their fidelity to unmistakable Church teachings is not in question. It is, but they can do something about this dilemma as I indicated in a previous posting when Steve and I engaged one another in an earlier discussion dealing with fidelity to the Church’s teachings.

A final point I would like to raise in this posting about the editorial concerns its assertion that “History, especially the history of the Second Vatican Council, tells us that disagreement is often the work of the Holy Spirit.” This is an interesting but, nevertheless, inaccurate proclamation about the Council’s work and the documents it produced. Before drafting this posting, I reviewed the texts that the Council adopted, particularly Lumen Gentium and Dignitatis Humanae, and cannot reach the same conclusion that the editorial does about history, particularly that of the Second Vatican Council, and the work of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge the existence of a history of dissent that ignores or disagrees with Church teachings that come from the Council, but I cannot agree that this particular history is consistent with the Council’s teachings or the work of the Holy Spirit. In making this appeal, I recall Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that the faithful must, in fact, agree, avoid dissent, and be united “in the same mind and the same judgment.” Indeed, there are some matters on which we can disagree and remain faith to the Magisterium, but surely there are other items on which we can not.    RJA sj

Law and Economics Training for Religious Leaders

By Greg Sisk

In the past couple of days, there have been several posts here on the Mirror of Justice about markets and economics. This past week, Villanova hosted a conference on "Catholic Social Teaching on the Market, The State and the Law," while the University of St. Thomas simultaneously held a symposium on "Peace With Creation: Catholic Perspectives on Environmental Law." Issues of economics, markets, and the wisdom of reliance on government intervention to promote social justice were themes at both events.

In this regard, our readers may be interested in a post at the Volokh Conspiracy by Ilya Somin, with the above title, and which includes a cite to an earlier post by Rick Garnett here at MoJ. Ilya Somin's post includes the following:

* * * [I]t seems to me that many religious leaders who pronounce on public policy tend to reflexively favor increasing the role of government with little consideration of ways in which the interventions they favor might have perverse results, or ways in which social problems can be alleviated by reducing the role of the state instead of increasing it. Left-wing clergy seek to increase the role of government in fighting poverty, discrimination, and the like, while right-wing ones tend to focus their political energies on promoting "morals" regulation. This may well be painting with too broad a brush, and I'm sure there are religious leaders who are exceptions to this generalization. Nonetheless, it seems to me true as a general pattern (though I welcome correction by anyone who has compiled systematic data).

Learning basic law and economics won't necessarily turn religious leaders into libertarians. But it might give them a greater appreciation for markets, and engender at least a modest skepticism towards government. * * *


Saturday, September 22, 2007

So, What Does Catholic Social Theory Have to Say About This?

By Michael Perry

More Profit and Less Nursing at Many Homes   

By CHARLES DUHIGG
New York Times

Insulated from lawsuits by their corporate structures, private investors in nursing homes have cut expenses and staff, sometimes below minimum requirements.

Click here to read this worrisome story.

MOJ and Theological Diversity

By Michael Perry

As veteran MOJ-readers know, MOJ-bloggers are a theologically diverse group.  We often disagree among ourselves--sometimes quite strongly--about one or another issue.  When I read the following paragraph this morning (in a Commonweal editorial), I thought of MOJ's diversity and what a strength it is.

Yet “faithful Catholics” do in fact disagree about church teaching regarding contraception, the ordination of women, and the nature of the papacy, among other things. History, especially the history of the Second Vatican Council, tells us that disagreement is often the work of the Holy Spirit. “Perhaps one of the lessons we have learnt since the cruel way in which the Modernists were treated a century ago,” writes Fergus Kerr in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians (Blackwell), “is that we have to live with some quite deep divisions and intractable rifts within the Catholic Church, over morals and liturgy especially.” R. Scott Appleby’s article on the hundredth anniversary of the condemnation of the American Modernists (page 12), is a useful reminder of why open and respectful disagreement is always better than its suppression.

To read the rest of the editorial, click here.

Market Economies and the Catholic Conception of the State

By Susan Stabile

One of fascinating papers delivered yesterday at the Villanova CST symposium was that of Robert Pecorella, a political science professor at St. John's University in New York.  Pecorella believes, as my earlier post suggests I do, that to be consistent with CST, market economies require careful balancing of the social values of efficiency and equity. But he also suggests that although Catholic thought includes a set of individual economci rights that may well require state-enforced redistribution, that such a state approach is not the preferred response to inequity.  Rather, he argues in favor of other remedies that take into account the principle of subsidiarity in service of solidarity.

In the portion of his paper in which he outlines "other remedies" to market inequalities, he suggests a path to an institutional form of commutative and contributive justice.  Because it already has an active commitment to commutative and contributive justice and because it has a workable diocesan structure arranged within the existing structure of state boundaries, he looks to the Church in the United States as the institution promoting change.  Pecorella suggets that it may be time for the US Church to move from making general statements about social justice to making "operationally clear assertions" of what is expected within the Catholic community.  He argues in favor of defining both economic floors beneath which no one should be allowed to fall and economic ceilings which define the point at which people of good faith "simply have enough."  He acknowledges the complexity (not to mention controversial nature) of such a proposal, and suggests that in order to secure voluntary compliance by economically well off Catholics, the ceilings on economic outcomes likely will need to be initially set artifically high.  He calls for organizational eforts within the dioceses to implement a floor and ceiling economic transfer program.

Leaving aside the complexity of picking an amount, the need to take into account regional differences, and whatever questions people may have about using the diocesan structure to effect change, the proposal is an intriquing one.  Perhaps my own reaction is affected by my views about executive compensation and the gap in pay between executives and rank and file workers, a subject about which I have written in the past.  But the idea that, not only that everyone deserves to have enough to flourish as a human person, but that there is a point at the upper end that is enough and beyond which is simply too much for a person of faith, is one worth thinking about.

More About CST and Markets

By Susan Stabile

Although I'm not sitting at a gate at the airport, I thought I'd add to Rob's post about yesterday's wonderful symposium at Villanova on Catholic Social Teaching on the Market, The State and the Law.  I am a firm believer that CST has something real to say about the market and economic matters.  While I don't disagree with those who maintain that CST leaves a lot to prudential judgements rather than proposing specific solutions to many of the particular questions that were raised during the day, that does not diminish the force of the teachings.

The third panel of the day included presentations by Mark Sargent on the divergence of the secular corporate social responsibility movement and CST, Rob Vischer on questions of conscience and corporate identity and myself contrasting a secular and CST vision of human work, the worker and the relationship between the employee and employer (and also very helpful commentary on the papers by Lyman Johnson and Julian Velasco).  During the question and answer session following the presentations, someone argued that the free maket is the most efficient wealth creator and that corporations are an efficient structure in the free market.  Therefore, on what basis, he asked, could we justify imposing constraints on the corporation to behave in a moral fashion that might weigh it down and make it less efficient.  Of course, none of the speakers were arguing for jettisoning the free market.  However, while it may be true that the free market is the most efficient wealth creator, it clearly is so for only a segment of the population.  I recognize that there are many who believe that the rising tide raises all ships, but my own view is that is patently false.  If a significant portion of the population is being left behind as the tide rises, then there is a problem from a CST perspective; efficiency in wealth creation can not be the only criteria for judging a system.

The question of what implications CST has for how and to what extent the law should step in to force more just outcomes in the market is, of course, the difficult one.  Lyman Johnson observed during his comments that I seemed more hesitant to invoke legal mandates in the paper I wrote for this conference than I was in my 2004 Wake Forest article ("Using Religion to Promote Corporate Responsibility - the link to which is posted on the right sidebar) and he wondered why that was.  I certainly have no difficulty theoretically with the idea of a government mandate on corporate entities, for reasons I have discussed in some of my writings.  But he is correct that I have become increasingly nervous about direct government mandate, in part due to concern about the content and scope of norms that would be imposed on corporations if that were the route taken.  (For an example we have discussed on this blog and on which I have written - when it comes to the question of the wellbeing of employees, many believe that the interest of employees is served by forcing all employers - including religious employers - to provide prescription contraception coverage to their employees, a mandate I oppose.)  Another part of my hesitation is the belief we are at a point where some aspects of the workplace that are inconsistent with CST - for example, the fact that significant and increasing numbers of workers and their families lack access to affordable health care - are perhaps best dealt with outside of the employer-employee relationship.

Whatever position one takes on these matters, all of us who were present yesterday can agree that it was a wonderful, thought-provoking day.  Hopefully we'll manage further posts to share about the fine keynote by David Hollenbach, the second panel, which featured two papers - one on the development of American CST (Zachary Calo) and the other on the reconciliation of the American dream and God's dream in Economic Justice for all (Patrick Flanagan, C.M.), and political scientist Bob Pecorella's proposal during the first panel for remedies for market inequalities, including the attempt to specify economic floors and ceilings.    

Friday, September 21, 2007

Thinking About CST & Markets (or "Friday Night at Gate C24")

By Rob Vischer

Today I (along with MoJers Patrick Brennan, Susan Stabile, Eduardo Penalver, and Mark Sargent) had the wonderful fortune to participate in the latest installment of Villanova's ongoing exploration of CST and the law at a conference titled, Catholic Social Teaching on the Market, the State, and the Law.  The conversations were much too rich to capture in a single blog post -- and indeed, I did not planning on blogging about it now, but my sixth hour in the Philly airport has led me to brainstorm new ways to pass the time -- but I'll try to convey the flavor of the day by focusing on one exchange that took place on one panel.

St. John's University (Minn.) economics prof Dan Finn kicked things off by setting forth "10 heresies that tempt neo-cons to stray from CST."  I won't list them all, but I will mention four of his points:  First, he pushed back against the suggestion that when solidarity is pursued by society via the law's coercive power, it becomes morally empty.  Instead, Finn challenged us to recognize that law can help virtue become a habit under certain circumstances.  Second, he argued, against what he perceives as the libertarian challenge, that the voluntariness of exchange ensures justice; instead, the voluntariness of exchange simply ensures mutual advantage.   Third, he suggested that instead of referring to government's "intervention" in the market, we could more helpfully refer to government's "structuring" of the market.  Fourth, he wondered why neo-cons tend to take particular failures of government regulation as evidence that government regulation does not work, but rarely take particular failures of the market as evidence that markets do not work.  For example, according to Finn, neo-cons blame public school failures on the government (rather than on individuals), but they blame consumerism on individuals (rather than on the market).

Villanova law prof Robert Miller responded by agreeing that all of Finn's asserted "heresies" are erroneous views of a just economic order, but he asserted that the vast majority of libertarians/neo-cons would deny holding the views attributed to them by Finn.  Tracing a variety of grounds on which Milton Friedman approved of state regulation of the economy, Miller essentially argued that Finn had erected a neo-con straw man.

Eduardo Penalver then provided a taxonomy of libertarianism in an effort to clarify the disagreement between Miller and Finn.  He contrasted a moral version of libertarianism under which the commitment to individualism is principled (found in the work of Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick, for example) from a consequentialist libertarianism grounded in the belief that less state intervention tends to produce better outcomes.  While Finn had challenged neo-cons on their principles, most neo-cons -- at least those who look to CST for guidance -- will resist the suggestion that their governing principles are drastically different from those traditionally espoused by CST.  The differences arise in the area of policy -- which practical measures will most effectively further CST principles?  In that regard, Eduardo challenged progressive Catholic theorists to undertake empirical work in an effort to verify the relationship between libertarian policies and CST principles.

Others can expand on (or correct) my recollection.  As always, thanks to Mark and his colleagues at Villanova for dedicating time, talent, and treasure to the Catholic legal theory project.

A followup to the Dutch Dominicans Revisited

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Sincere thanks to Michael P. for his re-visitation of the Dutch Dominicans' pamphlet. It appears that their local superior and the Master General of the Dominicans have expressed their own reservations about this work of four members of the Order of Preachers. But they are not the only ones who seem to be interested in the matter.

For example: this past week, Pope Benedict met with some of his former doctoral students in continuation of his annual symposium-seminar that he has been conducting for many years with them. It appears that he reminded his former students, many of whom are now theologians, in the last several days that a theologian should not engage in "theological arrogance." I think when any of us pursue our own course in matters theological that separate us from a rich teaching, we exercise a form of arrogance that separates us from the Body of Christ, Holy Mother the Church.

Again, I ask the question I posed earlier when Michael first raised this topic: what do my Dutch presbyteral brothers responsible for authoring this pamphlet do on their weekends? Maybe they do go out to as many parishes as they can serve by bringing the Eucharist to God's people, but it may be that they do not. If the latter, should they not? I think so, particularly when one considers that they are not only members of the Body of Christ ordained in sacramental ministry as priests, they also belong to the Order of Preachers who have a great gift to bring to the Body of Christ, the People of God.    RJA sj

The Dutch Dominicans, Revisited

By Michael Perry

From the new issue of The Tablet:

To serve and celebrate
Andre Lascaris
Four Dominican theologians have caused a furore in the Dutch Church with their new booklet, arguing that the Church in future will have to allow ‘inspired members of the community’ to celebrate the Eucharist. Here, one of the authors explains their beliefs about who should preside.

Click here to read.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Required Reading, It Seems

By Michael Perry

Charles Taylor's new book, A Secular Age (Harvard 2007).  Notice what Alasdair MacIntyre and Robert Bellah say, below.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In his characteristically erudite yet engaging fashion, Taylor, winner of the 2007 Templeton Prize, takes up where he left off in his magnificent Sources of the Self (1989) as he brilliantly traces the emergence of secularity and the processes of secularization in the modern age. Challenging the idea that the secular takes hold in a world where religion is experienced as a loss or where religions are subtracted from the culture, Taylor discovers the secular emerging in the midst of the religious. The Protestant Reformation, with its emphasis on breaking down the invidious political structures of the Catholic Church, provides the starting point down the road to the secular age. Taylor sweeps grandly and magisterially through the 18th and 19th centuries as he recreates the history of secularism and its parallel challenges to religion. He concludes that a focus on the religious has never been lost in Western culture, but that it is one among many stories striving for acceptance. Taylor's examination of the rise of unbelief in the 19th century is alone worth the price of the book and offers an essential reminder that the Victorian age, more than the Enlightenment, dominates our present view of the meanings of secularity. Taylor's inspired combination of philosophy and history sparkles in this must-read virtuoso performance. (Sept.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
Kirkus Reviews (starred review) : If the author had accomplished nothing more than a survey of the voluminous body of "secularization theory," he would have done something valuable. But, although Taylor clearly articulates his disdain for the view that modernity ineluctably led to the death of God, he goes far beyond a literature review...In addition to its conceptual value, this study is notable for its lucidity. Taylor has translated complex philosophical theories into language that any educated reader will be able to follow, yet he has not sacrificed an iota of sophistication or nuance. A magisterial book.

Publishers Weekly (starred review) : In his characteristically erudite yet engaging fashion, Taylor takes up where he left off in his magnificent Sources of the Self (1989) as he brilliantly traces the emergence of secularity and the processes of secularization in the modern age...Taylor sweeps grandly and magisterially through the 18th and 19th centuries as he recreates the history of secularism and its parallel challenges to religion. He concludes that a focus on the religious has never been lost in Western culture, but that it is one among many stories striving for acceptance. Taylor's examination of the rise of unbelief in the 19th century is alone worth the price of the book and offers an essential reminder that the Victorian age, more than the Enlightenment, dominates our present view of the meanings of secularity. Taylor's inspired combination of philosophy and history sparkles in this must-read virtuoso performance.

The Economist : One finds big nuggets of insight, useful to almost anybody with an interest in the progress of human society...A vast ideological anatomy of possible ways of thinking about the gradual onset of secularism as experienced in fields ranging from art to poetry to psychoanalysis...Taylor also lays bare the inconsistencies of some secular critiques of religion.

Review
Taylor's book is a major and highly original contribution to the debates on secularization that have been ongoing for the past century. There is no book remotely like it.
--Alasdair MacIntyre

This is Charles Taylor's breakthrough book, a book of really major importance, because he succeeds in recasting the whole debate about secularism. This is one of the most important books written in my lifetime. I am tempted to say the most important book, but that may just express the spell the book has cast over me at the moment.
--Robert N. Bellah

Book Description

What does it mean to say that we live in a secular age? Almost everyone would agree that we--in the West, at least--largely do. And clearly the place of religion in our societies has changed profoundly in the last few centuries. In what will be a defining book for our time, Charles Taylor takes up the question of what these changes mean--of what, precisely, happens when a society in which it is virtually impossible not to believe in God becomes one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is only one human possibility among others.

Taylor, long one of our most insightful thinkers on such questions, offers a historical perspective. He examines the development in "Western Christendom" of those aspects of modernity which we call secular. What he describes is in fact not a single, continuous transformation, but a series of new departures, in which earlier forms of religious life have been dissolved or destabilized and new ones have been created. As we see here, today's secular world is characterized not by an absence of religion--although in some societies religious belief and practice have markedly declined--but rather by the continuing multiplication of new options, religious, spiritual, and anti-religious, which individuals and groups seize on in order to make sense of their lives and give shape to their spiritual aspirations.

What this means for the world--including the new forms of collective religious life it encourages, with their tendency to a mass mobilization that breeds violence--is what Charles Taylor grapples with, in a book as timely as it is timeless.

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive