Friday, February 19, 2010
It appears that the only way to take up a commenter's offer is to seek his or her further contribution is by another post. There is no way to contact the commenter directly through TypePad.
And so I write to Phil. I should like to take him up on his offer to provide me with "the peer review scientific literature that attests to his" contentions and disagreements with me.
So, before I do respond to what he said, I should like to have the benefit of his offer.
Thank you, Phil.
RJA sj
This is nice news for all of my friends in Holy Cross, the religious community honored with the care of the mission of the University of Notre Dame:
Known popularly as the "miracle man of Montreal," Brother André Bessette, C.S.C.-an unassuming porter who became legendary for his ministry to the sick and needy of Montreal-was formally recognized today by the Vatican as one of six candidates who will be canonized a saint later this year.
A divide that may not be bridged, by Sister Joan Chittister, NCR, 2/19/10
Being in Ireland as the country and the church continue the torturous process of resolving -- if that's possible -- the standoff between victims of sexual abuse and the local episcopacy ...
I've been watching the Irish sex abuse situation here for years. And learning
about communication from every minute of it. This is not the United States of
America. This is Catholic Ireland. Nothing could be more different than these
two cultures in their approach to a church problem. In the United States when
the sexual abuse crisis erupted and the church retreated behind a plexiglass of
legal responses, people picketed churches, signed petitions, demonstrated
outside chanceries, and formed protest groups.
In Ireland, the response had another kind of chill about it, however. In
Ireland the gulf got wider and deeper by the day. It felt like the massive
turning of a silent back against the bell towers and statues and holy water
fonts behind it. No major public protests occurred. "Not at all," as they are
fond of saying. But the situation moved at the upper echelon of the country
relatively quietly but like a glacier. Slowly but inexorably.
A country which, until recently, checked its constitution against "the teachings of the church" and had, therefore, allowed no contraceptives to be sold within its boundaries, unleashed its entire legal and political system against the storm.
They broke a hundred years of silence about the abuse of unwed mothers in the
so-called "Magdalene Launderies." They investigated the treatment of orphaned or
homeless children in the "industrial schools" of the country where physical
abuse had long been common. The government itself took public responsibility for
having failed to monitor these state-owned but church-run programs. And they
assessed compensatory damages, the results of which are still under review in
the national parliament....
The survivor's response to the meeting of Pope Benedict XVI with the Irish
Episcopacy had the ring of repugnance about it. "Pope Benedict," Andrew Madden,
a spokesperson for the survivors said, "has not articulated full acceptance of
the findings of the Murphy Report, as we asked him to do," (RTE1 News, February
16.) That is needed, he went on, "to quell the rise in revisionism and the surge
in denial from some quarters within the Catholic church in relation to its
findings."
The message is clear:
First, until the church, in an official way, admits that the findings of the
Murphy Report on the overwhelming amount of child abuse that went on in Dublin
are true and accepts responsibility for the climate that made cover up an
episcopal practice, the case, at least in the victims' minds, is not closed.
Archbishop Dermot Clifford of Cashel lamented that the Murphy investigation
might well be extended to all the dioceses in Ireland. If that happens, he said,
"the past won't be past for a long time.
Second, until the bishops who were part of the cover up all resign, the
victims argue, the church will not have proven either their rejection of the
practice, their determination to change or their ownership of the problem.
Point: Four bishops criticized in the report have offered their resignations, but so far the pope has officially accepted only one of them. a fifth bishop criticized in the report, Martin Drennan of Galway and Kilmacduagh, has said he did nothing wrong and won't resign. All were auxiliary bishops at the time of the first reports of abuse. They did nothing to bring the situation to light. But none of them, no one in the Irish episcopacy, has yet to admit to their own role in a cover-up. No bishop, in a land where the burden of guilt fell heavily on the backs of Irish people, has admitted his own guilt, his own defense of the institution rather than the care of the children. No one has said, "The church -- I -- was wrong in the handling of this scandal. Therefore, I, too, am responsible for this abuse."
So how are the Irish people reacting to the impasse? Well, as they opened Catholic Schools Week in Ireland this month, the Market Research Bureau of Ireland was reporting that 74 percent of the population think that "the church did not react properly to the Murphy Report" and that 61 percent of the population "want no Catholic control of elementary schools." Little more than half of the respondents think the church will really change to prevent abuse in the future, and 47 percent feel more negative than before toward the church.
Most telling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the support of the older
generation which, at its best, was once only marginally higher than the support
of 18-24 year olds, may be shifting even lower. "The fallout from the Murphy
report was a shock to the bishops," Archbishop Clifford said, and "had a far
greater negative effect on older people than the previous two investigations had
been."
"While they were preaching at us they were damaging our children," an old
woman said. "What more can you say?"
From where I stand, it seems that the long-awaited meeting between the pope and the bishops of Ireland is over now, more with a yawn than a standing ovation. In true Irish fashion, everybody's talking about it, but if the data is saying anything, it may be that the love affair between the people and the church is on very rocky ground; one side is not hearing the other and the gulf is growing wider every day.
Hello Once More, All,
In connection with some of our recent back-and-forth on lobbying interests and Congress, I think today's post by Neil Buchanan over on Dorf is especially compelling. In case it's of interest to any of our MOJers or readers, you can find it here: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2010/02/lobbying-and-corruption.html . For what my two cents here might be worth (presumably less than two cents), I think that Neil -- a warm, caring spirit who is altogether lovealbe for his never-dimming capacity still to be shocked by the routine corruptions of our political process carried out seemingly every day through representatives of both of the major political parties -- is one of the most effective commentators we have on matters of taxation, public finance, and macroeconomic policy.
All best,
Bob
Hello All,
A propos Rick's and Elizabeth's posts in re the 'Family Guy' television program, here is an interview with the actress who apparently plays one of the parts in the program, in today's NYT: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/family-guy-voice-actor-says-palin-does-not-have-a-sense-of-humor/?no_interstitial.
This might be the item Elizabeth, via Michael, was pointing to in her post just below, in which case I hope all will pardon the duplication. I got a 'no page' sign when clicking on the link, but this might be the product simply of an outdated web browser. The likelihood of the latter, incidentally, stems from the same source as my not knowing this television program -- viz., my living more or less in the 19th century with occasional weblogging, emailing, and word-processing constituting nearly the sole exceptions.
All best from here in the snow-draped forest,
Bob
A fundamental tenet of the contemporary disability rights platform is "self-advocacy" -- letting people with disabilities speak for themselves, rather than having others speak for them. (This is nicely captured in the slogan: "Nothing About Us Without Us.") In that vein, here is what Andrea Fay Friedman, the voice actress who portrayed the character with Down Syndrome in the controversial Family Guy episode has to say. A very interesting interview (HT Michael Perry). (And the interview DOES tie all of this nicely to Catholic Legal Theory, because she reveals that she works at a law firm.)
UPDATE: I was trying to link to the same article Bob Hockett identifies in the post above, but somehow messed up the link. I tried to fix it twice, and it's still not working for me. So use the link in Bob's post. It's well worth it!
This letter is available at education-researcher Jay Greene's blog:
Dear Senator Durbin and Secretary Duncan,
Warmest greetings from the University of Notre Dame. We hope this letter finds both of you well, and that the new year has been filled with grace and blessings for you and your families.
We write today because we are all deeply disappointed by the turn of events that has led to the imminent demise of the Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), and we are gravely concerned about the effects that the unprecedented gestures that have jeopardized this program will have on some of the most at-risk children in our nation’s capital.
For the past decade, the University of Notre Dame, through its Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE), has served as the nation’s largest provider of teachers and principals for inner-city Catholic schools. Since 1993, we have prepared more than 1,000 teachers and hundreds of principals to work in some of the poorest Catholic schools in the nation. That experience, along with the research that we have sponsored through our Center for Research on Educational Opportunity, leads us to an unqualified conclusion: the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program provides an educational lifeline to at-risk children, standing unequivocally as one of the greatest signs of hope for K-12 educational reform. To allow its demise, to effectively force more than 1,700 poor children from what is probably the only good school they’ve ever attended, strikes us as an unconscionable affront to the ideal of equal opportunity for all.
Three decades of research tell us that Catholic schools are often the best providers of educational opportunity to poor and minority children. Students who attend Catholic schools are 42 percent more likely to graduate from high school and are two and a half times more likely to graduate from college than their peers in public schools. Recent scholarship on high school graduation rates in Milwaukee confirms that programs like the OSP can, over time, create remarkable opportunities for at-risk children. And after only three years, the research commissioned by the Department of Education is clear and strong with regard to the success of the OSP, as you both well know. This program empowers parents to become more involved in their children’s education. Parents of OSP students argue that their children are doing better in school, and they report that these scholarships have given their families an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. If this program ends, these parents will be forced to send their children back to a school system that is ranked among the worst in the nation, into schools they fought desperately to leave just a few years ago.
At Notre Dame, we have recently witnessed the painful but logical outcomes of your failure to save the OSP. For the past three years, the University of Notre Dame has worked in close partnership with Holy Redeemer School, a preK-8 Catholic school community located just a few blocks from Senator Durbin’s office on the Hill. In fact, Senator Durbin visited the school and expressed his deeply favorable impression. We too have witnessed the transformative capacity of Holy Redeemer, a place where parents report feeling a sincere sense of ownership in their children’s education for the first time in their lives. Indeed, over the past three years strong leadership, excellent academics, low teacher turnover, and committed parents have all contributed to truly outstanding gains in student achievement. The children at Holy Redeemer were, unlike so many of their peers, on the path to college.
So we were deeply saddened to learn that the impending termination of the OSP has put the school in an untenable situation, leading the pastor to conclude that the school must be closed. Families are presently being notified that their children will have to find a new school next year. The end of the OSP represents more than the demise of a relatively small federal program; it spells the end of more than a half-century of quality Catholic education for some of the most at-risk African American children in the District. That this program is being allowed to end is both unnecessary and unjust.
We—and many others in the Notre Dame community—are wholeheartedly committed to protecting the educational opportunity of these children. We encourage you to reconsider protecting the OSP and the children it serves from this grave and historic injustice. You are joined by Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education, by the faculty and students on Notre Dame’s campus, by tens of thousands of Notre Dame alumni nationwide, and by millions of Catholic school families across the country in a steadfast commitment to ensure that these children continue to receive the educational opportunity that is their birthright.
Please know of our deepest appreciation for your consideration of this request. We hope and pray that we can work together with you to save this program.
Yours, in Notre Dame,
Rev. John I. Jenkins, CSC
President, University of Notre Dame
Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, CSC
President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame
Rev. Timothy R. Scully, CSC
Director, Institute for Educational Initiatives
University of Notre Dame
Patrick Lee and I will be publishing a response to Andy Koppelman's paper. Andy is a very smart and very good guy, and a worthy opponent. We believe we can show, however, that his declaration of victory over advocates of traditional norms of sexual morality and the conjugal conception of marriage is no more warranted than Andy's previous declarations of victory. See, for example, Koppelman, Andrew, "Is Marriage Inherently Heterosexual?" American Journal of Jurisprudence, 42:51-95 (1997), and John Finnis's devastating reply in "The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations: Some Philosophical and Historical Observations," American Journal of Jurisprudence, 42:97-134 (1997).
One of the many propositions we will set forth and defend (and defy Andy and others who take his line to defeat) is that the redefinition of marriage to remove the element of sexual complementarity perforce eliminates any ground of principle for supposing that marriage is the union of two persons, as opposed to the union of three or more in a polyamorous sexual partnership. On this point, we find ourselves in agreement with many to Andy's left, including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, Chai Feldblum (though she had her name removed after she was nominated to serve on the EEOC), Kendall Thomas, Nan Hunter, Judith Butler, Michael Warner, and the more than 300 other self-described "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers" who believe that the principle on the basis of which marriage should (as they see it) be redefined to accommodate same-sex partnerships entails the like recognition of inter alia polyamorous unions (relationships in which there is "more than one conjugal partner"). See their statement Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships. Professor Lee and I will argue that though their premise (shared with Koppelman) is unsound, their logic is impeccable. So we believe that this debate is really (and unavoidably) about two radically different visions of sexuality and marriage; it is not properly characterized (as Michael P. characterizes it) as a debate about whether to grant or deny "access to civil marriage to the same-sex couples who intend for their unions to be lifelong, monogamous unions of faithful love." Speaking of Michael P., I notice that he was "struck" by Koppelman's conclusion:
Opponents of same-sex marriage today face [an] embarrassment. They are eager to protect their distinctive conception of family. But that conception depends on marginalizing the families of others and denying them legal recognition. In the long run, the invocation of “family” as a reason to beat up on gay people will seem as weird as the invocation of “freedom” did as a defense of the Confederacy.
Laying aside Andy unworthy rhetoric (especially for a guy who, as Rob rightly says, usually "takes his opponents' arguments seriously") about "beating up on people" and the utterly dubious effort to tar defenders of traditional norms of sexual morality and the conjugal conception of marriage as being like those Confederates whose high-minded claims were embarrassed by the fact that the freedom they were fighting for depended on the slavery of others, I would like to know (and perhaps some of the signers of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage might like to know) whether Michael would be equally "struck" by the conclusion if it read as follows: "Opponents of polyamorous relationships and their legal recognition face an embarrassment. They are eager to protect their distinctive conception of family. But that conception depends on marginalizing the families of others---including (Newsweek reports) the more than 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States today---and denying them legal recognition. In the long run, the invocation of 'family' as a reason to beat up on people who find love and fulfillment in multiple partner relationships will seem as weird as the invocation of 'freedom' did as a defense of the Confederacy." I'm "struck" by the question Steinem, Ehrenreich, and their colleagues in effect put to their fellow supporters of same-sex marriage: Do you intend to throw other sexual minorities overboard because they happen to find their fulfillment by living in ways that do not mimic the traditional norm of monogamous and exclusive love?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
For those who are interested ... here.
When I first read Andy's paper--some months ago, well before Andy was ready to post it on SSRN--I was struck by its conclusion ... which is worth quoting here:
Conclusion
A common refrain among opponents of same-sex marriage – all the writers I have critiqued here partake of it - is the importance of defending “the family.” They feel that the institution of the family, as they conceive it, will be undermined if same-sex marriages are recognized. This is a peculiar kind of argument, and it traps them in a paradox that has a remarkable historical precedent.
In the Civil War, the Southerners frequently declared that they were fighting for liberty and self-government. The title of James McPherson‟s history of the Civil War, Battle Cry of Freedom, capitalizes on the fact that, as McPherson writes, “[b]oth sides . . . professed to be fighting for freedom.” Jefferson Davis declared in 1863 that the South was “forced to take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and State sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires.” But the freedom that Davis was fighting for depended, of course, on the enslavement of others. The southern commissioners to Britain reported home that “the public mind here is entirely opposed to the Government of the Confederate States of America on the question of slavery. . . . The sincerity and universality of this feeling embarrass the government in dealing with the question of our recognition.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage today face a similar embarrassment. They are eager to protect their distinctive conception of family. But that conception depends on marginalizing the families of others and denying them legal recognition. In the long run, the invocation of “family” as a reason to beat up on gay people will seem as weird as the invocation of “freedom” did as a defense of the Confederacy
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
