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.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Gender, adolescence, and "today's poisonous boy culture"

I disagree with a lot of what Judith Warner writes, but her observations about gender roles during adolescence are worthy of some serious reflection, particularly as Catholics struggle to: 1) articulate exactly how gender differences matter, and how they should not matter; and 2) figure out how to support a healthy understanding of gender in our own children:

The message to the most vulnerable, to the victims of today’s poisonous boy culture, is being heard loud and clear: to be something other than the narrowest, stupidest sort of guy’s guy, is to be unworthy of even being alive.  It’s weird, isn’t it, that in an age in which the definition of acceptable girlhood has expanded, so that desirable femininity now encompasses school success and athleticism, the bounds of boyhood have remained so tightly constrained?

. . . . the strange thing is, this isn’t just about insecure boys. There’s a degree to which girls, despite all their advances, appear to be stuck – voluntarily – in a time warp, too, or at least to be walking a very fine line between progress and utter regression. Spending unprecedented amounts of time and money on their hair, their skin and their bodies, at earlier and earlier ages. Essentially accepting the highly sexualized identity imposed on them, long before middle school, by advertisers and pop culture. In high school, they have second-class sexual status, Pascoe found, and by jumping through hoops to be sexually available enough to be cool (and “empowered”) yet not so free as to be labeled a slut, they appear to be complicit in maintaining it.

Has the Vatican really rejected Obama's proposed ambassadors?

This question has been addressed on MOJ here and here.  The answer may be technically "no" because "no candidates have been formally submitted."  But, according to the London Times, the answer is "yes" - three candidates have been rejected in the informal vetting process, including Caroline Kennedy and Doug Kmiec.

UPDATE:  President Obama would be well served, IMHO, by selecting a pro-life Democrat MOJ blogger as Ambassador to the Vatican.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

The case for same-sex marriage: language matters

Readers of this blog know that I have expressed skepticism about justifications for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.  At the same time, I find much of the rhetoric offered in support of SSM to be unhelpful and unproductive, to say the least.  Exhibit A is today's speech by New York Governor David Paterson, who unveiled his proposal for SSM and made it very clear what he thinks of anyone who does not get on board:

Anyone that has ever experienced degradation or intolerance would understand the solemn duty and how important it actually is. Anyone that’s ever experienced antisemitism or racism, any New Yorker who is an immigrant, who has experienced discrimination, any woman who has faced harassment at work or suffered violence at home, any disabled person who has been mocked or marginalized, understands what we’re talking about here. We have all known the wrath of discrimination. We have all felt the pain and the insult of hatred. This is why we are all standing here today. We stand to tell the world that we want equality for everyone. We stand to tell the world that we want marriage equality in New York State.

Yes, it is undeniably true that many gays and lesbians have experienced discrimination, violence, and marginalization on account of their sexual orientation.  But to imply that all opposition to SSM is coming from a place of "hatred" is inaccurate and irresponsible.  It further polarizes a debate that is already deeply contentious.  And when the governor of New York appears eager to engage in this sort of stark line-drawing, it does not bode well for the future viability of religious liberty.  I believe that SSM will be adopted in the majority of states over the coming years, but the tone and substance of the political discourse used along the way matters a lot.

Any Ann Rice fans out there?

I've never read anything by her, but I thought that some MOJ readers might be interested in this:

Sightings 4/16/09

Destiny’s Child

– Thomas Zebrowski

In her recently-released spiritual memoir, Anne Rice, the bestselling author of Interview with the Vampire, writes that the mass appeal of her fantasy books may be due partially to the way she has draped their otherworldly trappings over a conventional three-act frame.  Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession is itself no exception.  Yet the personal story she fits into this familiar dramatic pattern is not so much the prodigal daughter’s, as the one C.S. Lewis called “the pilgrim’s regress.”  The accent is less on sin and redemption than the loss and recovery of childhood faith.

The importance of origins to the tale Rice has to tell is demonstrated by the convincing detail with which she recreates and defends the pervasively Catholic culture of 1940s New Orleans, underlined by the manifest stability in her lifelong conception of God and his Church.  According to Rice, her preliterate openness to a world of sense experience in which “there was a profound connection between narrative, art, music and faith” is at the root of her abiding religious “interests and tendencies,” not to mention her knack for writing popular fiction about supernaturally haunted lives.  At the center of this incipient world was the icon of Jesus Christ who, present in the Holy Sacrament and in his Church, was able to call her back to Catholic faith after decades of hopeless wandering in a professed atheism one feels she never fully inhabited.  And as anyone knows who is familiar with the first two volumes of the novelized autobiography of Jesus upon which Rice has audaciously embarked, Christ remains for her the person proclaimed in the Church’s creeds and the canonical New Testament, presented with literary embellishments yet without significant concession to the skeptical conclusions of modern biblical scholarship.

It thus comes as an amusing surprise to discover that this deeply traditional and even nostalgic Catholic makes no apologies for some of the most colorful sins of her waywardness – neither the pseudonymously authored pornographic novels, still less the more pedestrian eroticism and gender play in which she has drenched her mainstream fare.  Just to make the point that she is not simply the anti-modern Christian her old-fashioned catechesis set her up to be, in fact, Rice quietly reminds the reader about her “transgressive” sexuality.  Though her tone, to be sure, is one of openness to correction rather than outright dissent, she devotes a portion of the book’s closing chapter to discussing the reasons why she remains unpersuaded by the Catholic Church’s teachings on women’s ordination and sexual morality.

The long shadow cast by Rice’s early impressions might help us to make sense of these apparent incongruities as well.  There is more than a hint here that the relaxed sexual attitude Rice adopted contemporaneously with her college departure from Catholicism came quite naturally to the same person whose “oversensuous mind” had made her so open to the rich physicality of pre-conciliar Catholic piety.   And haven’t the more puritan strains of Christianity always suspected a certain connection between carnal permissiveness and lavish sensuality in worship?  Of course, these tendencies were kept apart and an elevated aesthetic maintained by an overarching awareness of original sin, and a concomitant mistrust of the untutored passions, in the ordered world in which Rice grew up.  But there is some evidence that Rice herself may have developed a weaker view of human corruption – an Augustine or a Pascal could have some fun with her innocent-sounding notion that because her fall from faith was “sincere” it must have been morally blameless. 

Rice’s personal misgivings about some traditional Christian mores are far from being the focus of her lovely memoir, even less central to it than a related belief about herself as a “genderless” person, which she also traces to childhood.  Yet they fit in with our picture of her as a bracingly straightforward and unironic person who has learned from experience to trust her intuitions.  Indeed, the “tragedy of mind and heart” she memorializes in Called Out of Darkness is partly about the consequences of her mistake to abandon Catholicism, the first love and only meaning of her life, just because she wasn’t intellectually prepared to reconcile her deep religious convictions with what appealed to her in the secular world in which she came of age.  Here, the prescient words of a youthful Paulist priest who tried (counterproductively) to counsel her as her teenage faith wavered go straight to the point:  “For a Catholic like you,” he melodramatically cautioned, “there is no life outside the Catholic Church.”  From the Gothic tales that brought her fame to the devotional literature she’s now turning out, Anne Rice’s body of work bears consistent witness to this fact.

References

Anne Rice, Called Out of Darkness (Knopf, 2008).

For an excellent appreciation of Rice’s writings on Jesus see, “In Defense of Anne Rice” by Patricia Snow, which appeared in First Things:  http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1297.

Thomas Zebrowski is a Ph.D. Candidate in Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, and a former junior fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

"Planned Parenthood Matters"

A helpful reminder.

"The End of Christian America"?

Jon Meacham, the sage of Newsweek, considers the question whether we are reaching the "end of Christian America" (here):  "To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining [though still more than 75%] percentage of the American population."  He notes, though:  

Let's be clear: while the percentage of Christians may be shrinking, rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly exaggerated. Being less Christian does not necessarily mean that America is post-Christian. A third of Americans say they are born again; this figure, along with the decline of politically moderate-to liberal mainline Protestants, led the ARIS authors to note that "these trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians." With rising numbers of Hispanic immigrants bolstering the Roman Catholic Church in America, and given the popularity of Pentecostalism, a rapidly growing Christian milieu in the United States and globally, there is no doubt that the nation remains vibrantly religious—far more so, for instance, than Europe. . . .

. . .

America, then, is not a post-religious society—and cannot be as long as there are people in it, for faith is an intrinsic human impulse. The belief in an order or a reality beyond time and space is ancient and enduring. "All men," said Homer, "need the gods." The essential political and cultural question is to what extent those gods—or, more accurately, a particular generation's understanding of those gods—should determine the nature of life in a given time and place.

If we apply an Augustinian test of nationhood to ourselves, we find that liberty, not religion, is what holds us together. In "The City of God," Augustine —converted sinner and bishop of Hippo—said that a nation should be defined as "a multitude of rational beings in common agreement as to the objects of their love." What we value most highly—what we collectively love most—is thus the central test of the social contract.

Judging from the broad shape of American life in the first decade of the 21st century, we value individual freedom and free (or largely free) enterprise, and tend to lean toward libertarianism on issues of personal morality. . . .

There's a lot more. 

"Faith Groups Losing Battles Over Gay Rights"

The headline is not *quite* right, but the story is worth reading.  (I say it is "not quite right" because it is not clear to me that a commitment to gay rights requires eliminating religious-hiring rights for religious organizations.)  Here's the conclusion:

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."

Both sides predict more litigation as gay rights bump up against strong religious beliefs.

Marc Stern, general counsel for American Jewish Congress, said: "When you have a change that is as dramatic as has happened in the last 10 to 15 years with regards to attitudes toward homosexuality, it's inevitable it's going to reverberate in dozens of places in the law that you're never going to be able to foresee."

More here (HT:  First Things) on this "mega-cultural issue."

Education reform in Washington, D.C.

Anthony Williams, the former (Democratic) mayor of D.C., and Kevin Chavous, a former (Democratic) Council member, weigh in here in favor of meaningful education reform in D.C.  Will the Administration listen?  As the Washington Post explains, it should.  Unfortunately, the Administration seems to be listening to the wrong voices:

It's clear, though, from how the destruction of the program is being orchestrated, that issues such as parents' needs, student performance and program effectiveness don't matter next to the political demands of teachers' unions. Congressional Democrats who receive ample campaign contributions from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers laid the trap with budget language that placed the program on the block. And now comes Mr. Duncan with the sword.

Conscience at Fordham

FORDHAM CENTER ON RELIGION AND CULTURE | HEADLINE FORUM

Matters of Conscience
When Moral Precepts Collide with Public Policy

Tuesday, 28 April 2009 | 6 – 8 p.m.
Fordham University | Lincoln Center Campus
Pope Auditorium | 113 West 60th Street

What happens when individuals or institutions are called upon to cooperate with actions that they consider gravely immoral but that the law and public policy allow?

Recent legislative and judicial developments touching on life, death, sexuality, and family have stirred deep conflicts about moral and religious norms.

Should “conscience clauses” protect individuals or institutions from being compelled to cooperate with conduct that violates their religious or moral principles?

Can protection for conscience be balanced against the rights of those seeking morally controversial but lawful services?

MODERATOR
Russell Pearce, the Edward and Marilyn Bellet Chair in Legal Ethics, Morality and
Religion, Fordham University School of Law

PANEL
Douglas Kmiec, professor of constitutional law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University
Marc D. Stern, acting co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, and a leading expert on church-state issues
Nadine Strossen, professor of law at New York Law School, and past president of the American Civil Liberties Union
Robert Vischer, associate professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School


FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
R.S.V.P: [email protected] or (212) 636-7347
For more information: www.fordham.edu/ReligCulture

Reason and Authority

I appreciate Fr. Araujo's reflection on our common vocabulary and grammer (or lack thereof).  He writes that "our division appears to be attributable to whether we accept the truth or not about particular claims advanced by the Church."  I think that one can accept the truth of the Church's claims without concluding that a court that rejects those claims has substituted will for reason.  It is possible for two reason-employing people to disagree.  Perhaps the court has rejected reason, but that conclusion needs to be defended on its own merits, not by pointing out that the court has rejected the Christian (or traditional) view of marriage.  This relates to the point about the religious basis for a ban on same-sex marriage.  The court did end up embracing a view of marriage espoused by some religious believers, but it did not do so based on the religious believers' espousal of it.  The court did so through arguments that it perceived to be reasonable.  It discounted the traditional religious view of marriage because, in the court's estimation, the exercise of reason could not justify that view.