A further response by Cathy to Robby

[Hey, I didn't conscript this post either--but I sure am grateful for it!  Cathy says:]

Robby, Robby, ouch!  I try to outline, in objective fashion, just why Grisez isn't a big influence in current theological or philosophical circles, and you just resort to more  bluster and insult.

1.  Where, exactly, is my summary of the criticisms about Grisez wrong?  Would you like more citations?  For anyone who wants to begin reading about the critique of the new natural law theory from a conservative Catholic perspective, you might want to start with Russel Hittinger's book, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/A-Critique-of-the-New-Natural-Law-Theory/Russell-Hittinger/e/9780268007751  My own view is that too much is packed into the theory as premises.  You can make assertions in a baritone voice (self-evident goods, etc.), but that doesn't make them arguments--they're still assertions.

2.  I'm happy to have people to read my work--some of it actually reflects a vision of intention that accords with Grisez's and Finnis's ("Inferring Intention from Foresight," Law Quarterly Review January 2004), and is engaged with Grisez's work (What is Legalism?  Engelhardt and Grisez on the Misuse of Law in Christian Ethics," The Thomist, March 2009  I've learned a great deal from both of these men. I admire Finnis greatly.  I've also learned a great deal from John Noonan, and Alasdair MacIntyre--and instead of reading me, I'd say read Noonan and MacIntyre and compare THEM to Grisez and Finnis.  My basic theoretical framework is indebted to Noonan and MacIntyre--because I think they provide a richer account of human flourishing and a more comprehensive historical account of the development of Christian doctrine than Grisez does.

3.  The main area in which we disagree is what a Thomistic theory of law would look like on abortion.  Here's my take  M. Cathleen Kaveny, "Toward a Thomistic Perspective on Abortion and the Law in Contemporary America, The Thomist, March 1991.  http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/kaveny/kaveny-thomist-abortion.pdf  It tries to take seriously the Thomistic notion of law as a teacher of virtue--not an approach with which Finnis or Grisez would be sympathetic, since they don't see Thomas primarily as a virtue theorist.

4.  Oh, and I guess we disagree because I sometimes have voted for Democratic presidential candidates, foreseeing but not intending reinforcing abortion rights.  In particular, I couldn't vote for Bush a second time or for McCain--although I have in the past voted for the Republican presidential candidate on the issue of abortion. We all know after reading the NYT article that you're quite a Republican.

5.  Which brings me to my Rambo Catholics line.  Not a new quote --but one from this very blog in  2004, thanks to Google, whose memory  is eternal.  I wrote into the NYT Magazine and corrected the context. Hopefully it will come out soon.  I was deeply angered--and wounded--by your criticism of the intelligence, good faith, and commitment to Catholicism of pro-life Catholics who held their nose and voted for Kerr.  I thought it was way out line. Still do.

You can't compare people to supporters of slavery and the Holocaust, as you regularly do, and expect them to not get angry.   But then, that seems to be many people's experience with the pro-life movement.  The names that officials in the pro-life movement called Casey, or Nelson, or Brownback in recent months were just shocking to me--but alas, not surprising.  Maybe the pro-life movement can afford to lose everyone it deems to be a "traitor" to the cause.  I happen to think there's a lot of people around who are pro-life, but opposed to the tactics and vision and language of the pro-life movement.  My sense is that the movement thinks it can afford to lose us all.  Maybe it can.

At any rate, have a happy New Year, Robby, and MOJ--I think I'd better go back to grading, and to my own blog home, on Commonweal.  My next column, for those who are interested, is on a relative of Rick's --Thomas Garnett, the saint and martyr--and the practice of "mental reservation" around the Irish sex abuse case.