Over the past several days a number of contributors have exchanged views on several issues involving Plan B and abortion and the views of those who identify themselves as Catholics. First of all I am grateful for these discussions and debates. Second, they have prompted some further thinking on my part regarding what distinguishes the authority of the state from the authority of the Church. Our web log dedicated to the development of Catholic Legal Theory has been no stranger to the topic of authority.
To begin, I think that the contrast and comparison of these two authorities requires book or treatise treatment rather than a brief posting of, at most, a few pages. One need only consider the work of those like Heinrich Rommen and his The State in Catholic Thought or Christopher Dawson to catch the implication of my point.
Nevertheless, even the briefest of treatments can provide catalysts for thought and discussion. The previous postings to which I refer pose some circumstance in which the individual or individuals are countered by the state or the Church. The individual has a measure of freedom and autonomy, both of which have been exaggerated, at least conceptually, by the famous “mystery of life” dicta of Casey. Nonetheless, the individual person surely enjoys a healthy and authentic measure of freedom and autonomy that are proper to the person vis-à-vis the state or the Church. However, the individual’s freedom and autonomy can be countered and challenged by the authority of either the state or the Church in particular circumstances.
It is essential, however, to consider how the state and the Church exercise their respective authority. For one thing, the state (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) has the ability to deny a person his or her freedom and autonomy in ways that can lead to imprisonment, economic ruin, denial of a livelihood, or even death. By contrast the Church has only the ability to remove a person—if he or she has not already done this—from the Body of Christ. Indeed, this may mean that a person may be removed from an academic post in a Catholic institution or from membership in a religious community; however, the individual may find gainful employment at another educational institution or become like most people and live somewhere other than a religious community.
In either case, what considerations does either the state or the Church take into account when exercising its respective authority? Yves Simon, in his assessment of “the bad name of authority” offered four factors for investigation: justice; life; truth; and order. In varying ways, the state’s and the Church’s actions intersect each of these considerations but in very different ways: the state’s authority is concentrated on the physical and has little or nothing to do with the metaphysical or interior spiritual component of the person; by contrast, the Church’s authority has very limited control over physical dimensions of a person’s life but proposes to those who claim membership what is proper and what is not in spiritual, moral, and metaphysical concerns. Ultimately, the person concludes whether he or she is subject to the Church’s authority and submits freely to it or not, but such is not the case with his or her exposure to the state’s authority. As one considers the elements of justice, life, truth, and order, the distinctions should become all the more clear.
RJA sj
Upon reflection, I believe that the last line of my post which said that I'd look forward to Michael Perry's posts “if he actually had something to say” went too far, which I regret. It could be construed as snide, and for this I apologize. The point of both of my posts was to try to encourage a meaningful exchange with Michael. I think it would be fair to say that my posts reflect a sincere sense of frustration that many participants on MOJ have felt in response to Michael’s seeming unwillingness to state clearly the points he is trying to make and the reasons he believes stand behind these positions. In saying this, I do not in any way mean to insult him. On the contrary, I believe that Michael Perry is a highly intelligent contributor to legal theory in the academy, someone whose work I have read and benefited from. He has had a lot to say in print! And that's why I'd like to hear what he has to say on MOJ. Indeed, this is the opposite of an insult, since I regard the invitation to actually join the conversation as a compliment. I would look forward to being challenged by and to learning from Michael’s views if they were laid out explicitly. I am certain that Michael values genuine dialogue, and I am also certain that his being an active conversation partner on MOJ would make a meaningful contribution to the dialogue that already takes place on our blog.
Today we celebrate MLK Day, in recognition of the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to end racial segregation and other forms of racial discrimination through nonviolent means. On the day of his actual birthday, I posted on my blog an excerpt from King's 1956 imaginary letter from St. Paul to American Christians, in which St. Paul urges us to keep our "moral advances abreast" with our scientific advances. It is a letter worth reading as we all struggle with living in the world without being conformed to the world.
(I also posted today an excerpt from another King sermon, titled Garden of Gethsemene.)
Sunday, January 18, 2009
I spent this past week in Rome. The occasion was a wonderful conference, hosted by Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration, and also the 25th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and the Holy See, on "the American model of religious freedom." My task, in a nutshell, was to describe that model, and I punted, contending that the American "model" is really an ongoing dialogue / debate among three models: "freedom of religion", "freedom from religion", and "freedom for religion."
I was so impressed with the Ambassador. It was clear to me that both our country and the Church have been extremely well served by her.
While we are talking about anniversaries, remember again that MOJ's 5th is coming up. I hope all my fellow MOJ-ers will take a few minutes to reflect on the project as a whole. I think it is worth remembering, among other things, that -- even if we get a bit frustrated or testy from time to time -- we have been pulling off something pretty impressive, and worthy, these past years. We are a diverse group of very able people with strong views about lots of things that matter. We have almost always -- and we always should -- observed norms of charity and civility, and also substantive engagement and dialogue. This blog is not an echo chamber. Sometimes, echo chambers are more comfortable and safe than actual conversations, but they are not nearly so valuable or rewarding.
Anyway . . . at the risk of falling into delusions of grandeur . . . "ad multos annos" to MOJ. Let's take the 5th anniversary as an occasion to re-invigorate, and perhaps re-boot, some of our conversations, and try to move the "Catholic Legal Theory" ball. If not us, then who? etc.
And, if you are in Trastevere, check out Da Lucia, a wonderful, family-run trattoria in an obscure street. Wonderful.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Steve Shiffrin takes issue with my post seeking to elicit an opinion from Michael Perry with respect to the results of a recent survey that Michael posted on MOJ. To be sure, I see the value in posts that are simply informational, but I hope that Steve would admit that the idea behind Mirror of Justice is that it be more than a news site.
Yes, as Steve says, informational posts are “indispensable to informed dialogue on this site.” But that is to say that they are an aid to such dialogue, not a substitute for it. Indeed, Steve makes this very point in the concluding sentences of his post, though, I suspect, without meaning to do so. Steve says that Michael’s informational posts are “absolutely invaluable” in part because from Steve’s point of view “most of the contributors to this site take a different view from the positions implicated by Michael’s posts.”
But what are the “positions implicated” by Michael’s post? I frankly don’t know what they are because there are so many. The poll Michael cites suggests multiple implications, some of them quite antithetical (a point I tried to make explicit in my post). Moreover, because Michael doesn’t indicate why he thinks the survey is germane to the project that MOJ seeks to foster, we can only guess at what he had in mind.
I’m all for dialogue, but at an absolute minimum, dialogue calls for a basic level of candor and forthrightness – qualities that are surely lacking when one only posts the contents of a survey, leaving members of the blog and other readers to simply speculate as to one’s meaning.
Like Steve, I think that Michael’s posts are valuable, and I look forward to reading them, but I’d look forward to them even more if he actually had something to say.
