Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Once more with feeling, All,
As if they'd been reading recent MoJ posts, the folk at Yahoo posted this uncharacteristically thorough take on the abortion discussions apt to take place in the House, Senate reconciliation process: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091223/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_abortion.
Salut!, Bob
Hello again, All,
Just a quick word of thanks to Rick for his wonderfully thoughtful response -- particularly in light of the many good attention-requiring things on the plate right now (and not only figuratively speaking). It looks to me as though Rick and I might both be relying upon more or less the same, more or less choate, mode of evaluation in assessing the health legislation now before Congress. Where we might differ, if we differ at all -- for, as intimated in my previous two posts, I'm not entirely sure yet where I am on these things, hence whether or how much we might ultimately differ -- would be on a few empirical questions, and possibly to a marginal degree on the comparative weights we would attach to the goods and ills that the legislation would bring. I'll of course try to sort that out when I finally get round to the earlier promised attempt at 'applying,' to the proposed legislation soon to be before conference committee, that proposed mode of evaluation I sketched earlier. Looks like that'll have to be after Christmas -- which surely is as it should be in any event. I'll also of course be writing my members of Congress after the holidays, urging something like that thoroughgoing form of 'abortion-neutrality' that I proposed a couple of weeks back. Assuming as I have been doing that good faith which I have ascribed to self-professed 'pro-lifers' and 'pro-choicers' alike when they purport to be 'bracketing' the current abortion regime, without prejudice to the question of its merits or demerits, for purposes of advancing the shared aim of bringing affordable health insurnace to all, it will be only fair for me to hold both sides in the legislature to their own words!
A Blessed Christmas to Rick and to all of you!,
Bob
While I am still not comfortable holding out as "guidance" to Bob my thinking about (how to think about) the healthcare-insurance-funding proposal, his recent detailed and thoughtful post certainly (more than) deserves a response.
Let me start with Bob's "two final points": The care that Bob takes, and urges us to take, to avoid assuming "too much of an uncharitable character" is commendable and to be embraced. That said -- and conceding, of course, that I do not and cannot know what is in the heart, or motivating the actions, of every legislator and citizen who is supporting the Senate proposal -- it seems to me that the facts (as I, probably imperfectly, understand them) make it hard to avoid the conclusion that for many of the Democrats in Congress -- including the relevant leaders -- and also for many of the leaders and activists in the party's base, it really is important and core (not merely incidental or regrettable) that the healthcare-insurance debate / legislation serve as a vehicle for increasing "access" to abortion. (Not only through funding (direct and indirect); my understanding is that the Senate proposal does not include the "conscience" protection for health-care providers that was included in the House bill.) And, it seems similarly clear that, for these people, the desire to increase "access" travels closely with the view that increasing "access" will also have the desired effect of entrenching the practice legally. Bob says "we owe it to most if not all of [the non-pro-life Democrats] to take them at their word when they say they seek not to increase abortion-funding, but to increase insurance-funding." I don't think this is, in fact, the word of these Democrats.
Back to Bob's first point. He says that he is "genuinely trying to work out a workable mode of ethical assessment, suitable for conscientious Catholic lawyers and indeed citizens more generally, of proposed legislation that bears effects upon the incidence and what might be called 'public meaning' of abortion even while directed at ends that have nothing to do with abortion." This is an important and worthy project. (In this particular case, though, as I suggested above, I'm not sure it should be conceded that this is a case of proposed legislation that is "directed at ends that have nothing to do with abortion.") I am not sure I have, or have professed to have, a "mode of assessment": I noted that the Senate proposal would have certain bad effects in terms of the incidence and public meaning of abortion. It seems clear to me that it would. And, that a piece of legislation is likely to have such effects is, I think, a good reason to withhold support. Would the possibility of such bad effects always compel, for me, the withholding of support? Probably not. (See, e.g., Bob's highway-funding example.) Here, (i) the bad effects strike me as pretty bad; and (ii) there are, in my view, other, garden-variety reasons for withholding support of the proposal, which does not seem likely to me to result in sufficient good effects, at a reasonable cost. So, when I put all that together, I oppose the Senate proposal. I don't know if "all things considered" counts as a "mode of assessment", but I think that's what I'm doing.
As Bob points out, I said in an earlier post, "focusing (for now) only on the question whether or not the proposal facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law -- it seems to me that the answer to this question is "yes", and I'm comfortable holding the view that this answer provides a sufficient reason to hope the bill does not pass." For me, this answer does provide a "sufficient reason" in this case; and, I imagine that in the vast majority of cases (even if not in every imaginable case), this answer would provide, for me, a very weighty, even conclusive, reason to oppose proposed legislation. I do not think that, in saying this (jumping ahead to Bob's third set of points), I am saying that "the abortion effect of any proposed piece of legislation might be lexicographically prior to any other effect of that piece of legislation when it comes to assessing it with a view to whether it ought to be supported or opposed." For me, though, a proposal that seems likely not merely to result, indirectly, in a possible increase in the number of abortions, but to entrench more deeply a legal regime in which unborn children are excluded from the law's protections and religious objections to collaborating in abortions are under-protected, and to a cultural situation in which elective abortions are regarded as "health care" to which people have a "right" (at public expense), is almost always going to be a proposal that should, on balance, be opposed.
Bob says that he does not know enough, yet, to know if my "diagnosis" is mistaken. As I see / understand it, the Senate proposal moves the federal government away from a neutral posture towards abortion to, instead, directly subsidizing plans that provide it. (There are also direct-funding measures in the proposal and -- again -- removal of "conscience"-type protections.) It is clear to me that this will increase abortions and entrench in the law the government's approval of *purely elective* abortion as healthcare. If Bob has a reason for thinking that I am wrong about this, then I would certainly want to hear it, so that I could form a more accurate understanding of what, in fact, the proposal would do.
I appreciate, again, Bob's thoughtful post, and also the conversation.
[Here is Cathy's response:]
When the Catholic Church or one of its institutions confers an honor on them,
how do we assess the appropriateness of this honor --by looking at the
recipient's stance on that one issue, or by looking at their entire life and
context?
THAT IS MY QUESTION.
I am not trying to rerun the
merits of the ND decision–I’m trying to focus on the standard of review. John,
I’m afraid you’ve: 1) shifted attention to the merits; and) granted summary
judgment to your own position, by reading the facts about Obama in the worst
possible way and reading the facts about the Popes in the most favorable light.
I’m not surprised when that happens with non-lawyers, but I did hope for more
from a fellow law professor. But maybe I didn’t run my argument with enough
rigor and detail. So let me try to state my case more fully.
Let me
stipulate that the underlying moral issues are all serious. Abortion and the
Holocaust are the intentional killing of the innocent–in body. Child sexual
abuse involves seriously maiming the innocent in their psyches. Let me also
stipulate that none of the three (Obama, Pius XII, or John Paul II) is directly
involved in these practices, nor is in a position directly to stop them, but can
make them more difficult, protest them, or support them. They can also make them
less likely to occur. Obama supports a constitutional right to abortion in our
pluralistic society (perhaps because he thinks it’s the best, prudentially, we
can do), but he also supports reducing the number of abortions. He doesn’t
think abortion is a good thing Pius couldn’t stop Nazi Germany by himself–but
did he ever call, directly, for its overthrow? Did he ever call upon Catholics
to rise up against it? Did he ever call upon Catholic soldiers to refuse to
fight for Nazi Germany? Not to my knowledge. He balanced other values,
prudently, in deciding upon the best course of action. He reduce the number of
Holocaust victims without ever directly calling into question the legitimacy of
the entire regime which made it legal. John Paul II was actually in a position
to shut down Maciel–instead he repeatedly and firmly shut down the investigation
of credible accusations of child abuse. This wasn’t an isolated incident. He
saved and protected Cardinal Law, possibly even from US prosecution.
While there are doubtless differences in detail, the fact is that all
three men arguably have a morally deficient stance toward grave moral and social
evil which they are in some position to protest or prevent. (John you present
Pius and JPII as merely making mistakes–I think it is likely they were culpably
negligent–especially JPII on the sex abuse claims). That is the premise of my
analogy–but not its point. Here is the point:
1. It is a fact
that in the case of the Obama commencement speech, many of those who opposed it
said that his stance on the abortion issue ALONE was disqualifying–No matter
what else he did, or promised to do, his pro-choice stance alone made him
inappropriate for a Catholic school to honor
2. In contrast those
who support the invitation argued that a) The appropriateness of the honor
needed to be assessed in the context of Obama’s whole life, not his stance on
one issue narrowly construed; and b) that in issuing the invitation they did not
endorse Obama’s stance on abortion.
3. Precisely the same
controversy–with precisely the same structure in fact happening with respect to
the canonization of JP II an Pius XII. How do I know that? I read the papers,
watch the news and read John Allen–like everyone else.
4. According
to John Allen (here) and others, says that in pushing forward the cases for sainthood:
a) the appropriateness of the honor needs to be addressed in the context of
their whole lives, not on the basis of one actions or set of actions; and b) in
naming the Pope a saint, the Church doesn’t mean to endorse the treatment of the
Holocaust or the sex abuse case.
5. According to those that are opposed to the case, the failure to act
appropriately on ONE issue –child sex abuse or opposition to the Holocaust ought
to be a bar to the conferring of the honor. What is striking to me is that the
language used by this quite balanced summary of the issue is how the language
use resonates with the language used by the prophetic pro-life movement.
Compare the language of this summary of Pius XII’s opponents to the language of
the Manhattan Declaration.
“Papal opponents focus on
the particular evil that Nazism represented and maintain that in such
circumstances religious leadership must be clear, forthright and outspoken. Nazi
aggression and brutality should have been explicitly condemned; Roman Catholics
might have been inspired to do more for Jews and other victims of persecution,
who would at least have had the comfort of knowing that the world was not
indifferent to their fate.” Jonathan Gorsky, "Pius XII and the Holocaust," here. Gorsky is an orthodox Jew who works for the Council of Christians and
Jews
“In as much as these truths are foundational to human dignity and
the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they
are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are
compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit
ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us
and our institutions to abandon or compromise them.” The Manhattan Declaration, here.
6. In my
view, the standard for naming someone a saint–a role model Catholics trust to
intercede on their behalf in the heavens –ought to be higher than the standard
than that for commencement speakers. And while I don’t agree with you and
others who opposed the Obama commencement address and honorary degree, for the
life of me I can’t see how the same people are so sanguine about making Pius XII
and JP II saints–given the issues.
Finally, I
have to say, John, I’m utterly flummoxed why you can’t see the analogy. But I’ve
done my level best to lay it out for you fully.
And the question
I have for you John, is why do you think a prophetic stance like the Manhattan
Project is appropriate in the case of abortion–and not in the case of the actual
Holocaust or child sexual abuse? The fact that you can't seem to see any
problem with the canonization process (especially with the abolition of the
Devil's Advocate position) is hard for me to understand.
“I have to say, I really don’t get it.”
So begins a recent post by Cathy Kaveny over at dotCommonweal.
The purported source of her confusion is the Holy See's recent decision to declare Pius XII and John Paul II "venerable" and the negative reaction of many prelates and other Catholics to Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama as the University's commencement speaker and award him an honorary degree.
Pius, she says, "was at best lukewarm in his opposition to Nazism and the original Holocaust" and John Paul was "apparent[ly] negligen[t] in failing to investigate the charges against Maciel and the Legionaries [of Christ]."
Yet, says Cathy, in canonizing Pius [n.b. an action that has yet to take place] "the Church really doesn’t mean to endorse his approach to Nazism. And in canonizing Pope John Paul II, the Church really doesn’t mean to endorse his handling of the Maciel case." This is because "their whole lives cannot be reduced to one position, one action, one set of judgments."
But this, says Cathy, "was essentially the argument made by Notre Dame about the commencement invitation" to the President. And this is the source of her bewilderment. After all, President Obama's position was only to "acquiesce in [the] legality of abortion, claiming that this is the best we can do realistically and pragmatically.” Thus, the reader is left to conclude that it was wrong to oppose Obama’s speaking at Notre Dame since doing so reduced his whole political agenda to a single issue.
Doing her best to channel Jon Stewart, the difference says Cathy, with deliberate irony, is that "Obama was a commencement speaker –not a candidate for sainthood" and we have come to expect perfection in the former but not in the latter.
I appreciate the attempt at humor, but the analogy Cathy draws raises serious questions. Are the cases really that much alike?
Many people of good will -- including many contemporaries of Pius and not a few professional historians -- will take issue with Cathy's description of Pius’ response to the Holocaust as "lukewarm." Whether that characterization is historically accurate is certainly open to dispute, as is the wisdom of recognizing Pius as "venerable," given the sensitivity of Catholic-Jewish relations. This, however, is beside the point.
It can be conceded, at least for the sake of argument, that the prudential judgment that Pius exercised in responding to the Holocaust may well have been mistaken. The same could be said of John Paul's response to the allegations regarding Marciel. But this is where Cathy’s analogy breaks down. Whereas one may well question whether Pius should have been more outspoken in his opposition to the persecution of the Jews and other targeted groups, no one contends (or rather no reasonable person contends) that he favored such persecution, that he thought the Nazi laws that authorized such persecution were just, or that he approved of the atrocities carried out by the Third Reich.
In short, whatever Pius may have failed to say or do in response to the Holocaust, he never said that gassing Jews was a good thing, or something that should be permitted, or subsidized, or expanded. Likewise, even if John Paul was negligent in his oversight of the Legionaries and their leader, no one contends that the Pope approved of the abuse and deceit that was perpetrated by Marciel.
Neither Pius nor John Paul ever personally endorsed, let alone vowed to put the weight of their office behind an action that is gravely evil.
The President, by contrast, clearly favors abortion. He believes that laws creating a right to abortion are just and that the common good demands that the state pay for the procedure when women can’t afford it. He thinks that widely available legal abortion is a good thing -- far preferable to the alternative -- and he has invested political capital to see that the abortion regime is not only preserved but expanded, both in this country and abroad.
Moreover, President Obama not only believes that abortion should be recognized as a legal and constitutional right, but that the lethal exercise of that right may be a good thing in the individual case.
As then Senator Obama famously remarked on the campaign trail, if one of his daughters had an unintended pregnancy he wouldn't want her "punished with a baby" -- a moment of unscripted candor that reflects his true beliefs about abortion. Notwithstanding Obama's furrowed brow and the earnestness with which he voiced misgivings about the procedure in more guarded moments, these comments together with his political actions reflect the President's belief that abortion isn't really such a bad thing. It reflects his view that abortion is a legitimate alternative, even perhaps the best way of solving a specific kind of “problem.”
So unlike Pius who is faulted for not having spoken out about the Shoah, Obama’s problem isn’t reticence. It’s that he has said the wrong things and believes the wrong things, and that he has worked to turn his thoughts and words into law.
Surely if Pius or John Paul had championed the free exercise of an act that the Church considers both deeply sinful and profoundly unjust neither would be considered “venerable” let alone a candidate for sainthood. Shouldn’t we withhold our honor from secular figures who do the same?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Hello again, All,
Many thanks to Rick for taking notice of my earlier request, and of course it's altogether understandable that it might take a while to reply fully: 'Christmas-and-kids-stuff' is surely the best and most apt stuff right now!
For when there is more time, though, let me shorten and clarify my request for guidance from Rick.
(1)
I really am seeking Rick's guidance -- and as I said before, I don't mean this ironically. I'm genuinely trying to work out a workable mode of ethical assessment, suitable for conscientious Catholic lawyers and indeed citizens more generally, of proposed legislation that bears effects upon the incidence and what might be called 'public meaning' of abortion even while directed at ends that have nothing to do with abortion. I am hoping for guidance from Rick because I take him to have such a mode of assessment, either well developed or partly developed or inchoate, while also being possessed of a clear head and a clean heart (probably clearer and cleaner than mine), and hence truly believe that I (and of course others) will benefit from his thoughts on this matter. I take Rick to have such a mode of assessment, in turn, because he has opined about the pending health insurance reform legislation in part on the ground of what he suggests to be its effects upon the incidence and public meaning of abortion. The problem for me, thus far, is that I do not yet know precisely what Rick's mode of assessment here is, and I hope to learn it in order that it might inform -- if not indeed even become -- my own.
(2)
In his most recent post, I take Rick to be providing at least a hint of what his mode of assessment is when he says, 'focusing (for now) only on the question whether or not the proposal facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law -- it seems to me that the answer to this question is "yes", and I'm comfortable holding the view that this answer provides a sufficient reason to hope the bill does not pass.' The problem for me is that this hint thus far still remains too open-ended for me to ascertain what Rick's method of assessment is. And that is partly because I am still unsure of the sense in which Rick believes the current Senate bill 'facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law.' I promise I am not trying to be coy or cute or ironic or anything of the sort when I say the I just do not know by virtue of what feature or features of the bill Rick thinks it to do these things.
This is perhaps also the best place at which to offer a similar observation in response to Rick's reply to my first query in Sunday's post. Rick says, 'Does Bob disagree with my view that the Senate proposal moves "dramatically in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting unborn children in law and even when it comes to the (different) goal of reducing the number of abortions?" How is my (initial and revisable) diagnosis mistaken?' I must not have been clear in my post Sunday, for, truly, I did not mean to suggest that I find Rick's diagnosis mistaken. I wanted to know, rather, on what basis Rick thought this. I do not have an opinion yet as to whether Rick's diagnosis might be mistaken, or spot on, or partly right while nevertheless in need of some refinement, or [choose any number of predicate terms or phrases]. And that is because I do not yet know the diagnosis. Without a 'how' or a 'which direction' here, I'm just not able to form an opinion about the 'wrong direction' claim, let alone about a 'dramatically' wrong direction claim.
So I am still hoping, genuinely, that Rick will supply these details when there's time. And there certainly will be time in which reaching the truth here still can be useful, given that the Senate bill, assuming it passes this Thursday, will still have to be reconciled to the much different House bill.
(3)
Finally, back now to the 'hint' that I mentioned in the first paragraph under (2) above, there seems to me at least a suggestion in Rick's words that a bill's effect on the abortion regime in the US might of itself be a sufficient criterion on which to favor or oppose it, irrespective of what else the bill would effectuate. In other words, there is a hint that the abortion effect of any proposed piece of legislation might be lexicographically prior to any other effect of that piece of legislation when it comes to assessing it with a view to whether it ought to be supported or opposed.
But there are of course certain extreme understandings of lexicographical ordering in this context that I would presume -- correctly? -- Rick would not wish to endorse. To recur to an example I mentioned Sunday, for instance, if it turned out that, circa 1952, we could predict with great confidence that significantly more abortions would be procured by various individuals thanks to the construction of an interstate highway system that enabled people in abortion-prohibiting states more readily to cross into abortion-permitting states, would that fact alone provide sufficient reason to hope that a bill providing for an interstate highway system not pass? How about electricity? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Now as I say, I doubt that Rick would embrace such results as those, and so my question is, again, what should our mode of assessment be? I proposed one on Sunday which seems to me at least a good start, and I'm still eager to hear from Rick and others whether they think it workable, improvable, misguided, or what ever.
(4)
Let me close with two final points:
First I will quickly interpret, under the rubric of my proposed mode of assessing legislation that bears effects upon the abortion regime and the incidence of abortion in the US, the words of Rick I have quoted above: Rick suggests, recall, that the Senate bill currently 'facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law.'
If by 'facilitates and entrenches' Rick means that people who propose, draft, or support the legislation are aiming at excluding unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law, then such people would fail the first limb of the DDE-inspired 'test' I've proposed, and our question would then be the empirical one of whether Rick is correct in the claim that he makes of these people. And as I noted above, I for my part still have to ascertain the sense in which Rick thinks supporters of the bill are aiming to do that facilitating and entrenching. So far as I can tell thus far, the aim of those supporting the current Senate legislation -- including, notably, Senators Casey and Nelson -- is to get health insurance coverage to 30 million of the 46 million now lacking it, and to begin to get a grip on still skyrocketing health care and health insurance costs, in a manner that is as unlikely as possible to cause more people than presently seek abortions to seek abortions.
If I am right about this innocent intention, then the next question is whether the likelihood of the bill's attaining the aforemetioned aims is sufficiently high, and the aims themselves sufficiently laudable, as to trump the possible harm that might be more abortions procured by newly insured persons whose individual decisions would amount in effect to morally relevant intervening causes of those abortions. As I mentioned Sunday, I'll attempt a preliminary calculation along these lines later if I'm not in the interrum convinced that this DDE-inflected approach to the question is misguided.
Second let me briefly reply to Rick's final paragraph: Rick there asks, 'Why does it seem to matter so much to the Democrats in Congress that abortion-funding increase?' Two things to say to this.
The first is that, were the premise of the question correct, then it would suggest that these Democrats Rick mentions fail of the first limb of the DDE-style inquiry I propose. The second, however, is that I don't know that this premise is correct. The question strikes me at this point as being uncomfortably reminiscent of the old 'is it true you've stopped beating your spouse?' question.
Rick of course knows that Stupak, Casey, Nelson, and many other Dems in Congress are actually quite eager to see abortion itself outlawed, let alone unfunded. But even in the case of non-pro-life Democrats, I think it assumes much too much of an uncharitable character to claim that they are seeking to increase abortion-funding. I think we owe it to most if not all of them to take them at their word when they say they seek not to increase abortion-funding, but to increase insurance-funding.
If that latter as an incident yields more abortion-funding, it seems to me there's an excellent way short of Stupak to prevent that, and thus retain abortion-neutrality of the sort required to enable us to pass badly needed reform without having to attempt to reargue Roe or Hyde or any of the other historically fraught abortion-related controversies in the present inapposite venue. It is the way I proposed a week ago this past Friday: Simply require that all insurance companies offer a counterpart abortion-excluding plan to any comprehensive abortion-including plan that they offer.
Put the onus, in other words, on the insurance companies rather than the poor, whose insurability is otherwise held hostage by the abortion-covering insurers themselves. Why is it that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are suggesting this obvious solution to the 'abortion-neutrality' problem afflicting the health insurance reform debate?
Thanks again and more soon,
Bob
Monday, December 21, 2009
I'm late taking the bait laid out by my pal Michael, not because I've been busily drafting, but because of, well, Christmas-and-kids stuff.
As for the views of "the Princeton economist and Nobel laureate" Paul Krugman . . . I have nothing useful to say. Krugman, in my view, is an entirely predictable partisan. His understanding of the common good is, on many important points, not mine.
With respect to Bob's request for "guidance" . . . I certainly would not presume to provide "guidance" to Bob regarding the Senate's plan. (Oh, all right -- it costs too much, and does too little good, and too much bad).
I'm not sure how to respond to Bob's first query. Does Bob disagree with my view that the Senate proposal moves "dramatically in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting unborn children in law and even when it comes to the (different) goal of reducing the number of abortions?" How is my (initial and revisable) diagnosis mistaken?
As for the second query, it seems to me that there are plenty of things about the proposal that could "suffice to underwrite a justifiable hope that the legislation not pass" (see supra). But, focusing (for now) only on the question whether or not the proposal facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law -- it seems to me that the answer to this question is "yes", and I'm comfortable holding the view that this answer provides a sufficient reason to hope the bill does not pass.
A question for Bob, and Michael, and Krugman: Why does it seem to matter so much to the Democrats in Congress that abortion-funding increase? Should the importance they seem to attach to abortion-funding (it would be much simpler -- wouldn't it? -- to help the poor get decent healthcare if they were to settle for not-too-shabby prize of current legal regime) call into question the genuine-ness of their professed commitments to human dignity and well-being? Given all that we were told during the recent presidential election, why hasn't the President made clear to Congress, and to the country, his desire that his party put aside its desire for increased abortion funding (and decreased regulation of the practice) in service of the more important goal of providing (at a reasonable cost) decent healthcare to more Americans?
This news of the providence of Steve's happy spiritual connection to Myles Connolly quite took my breath away, and reminded me of this, the last paragraph of the Breslin introduction/foreword to Mr. Blue: "In 1954, when Connolly was in his late fifties and the father of five children, he backed off a bit from the message of Mr. Blue in a foreword to the book's silver anniversary edition: 'I feel that Mr. Blue, like Thoreau, failed to make the deeply important distinction that what is sauce for the bachelor may not be sauce for the married man and father at all.' Wiser? Sadder? Perhaps just older, which is why Jesus always insisted that the kingdom of God belonged by natural right to the young and the poor. The rest of us are allowed in on sufferance."
Patrick and others might be interested to know that Myles Connolly (also a writer of screenplays and a producer) was my godfather. I remember him as a very sweet man - at least to me. Unfortunately, he died in 1964. He has not been around to keep me straight. But he left behind a wonderful legacy of literature and film.
I think many MOJ readers will be interested in and even engaged by this essay, in yesterday's NYT, by the chief of pediatric cardiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The (inartful) title of the essay, here, is "When Does Death Start?"
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
