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.

Monday, March 8, 2010

"Gay Catholic Ex-Stripper Awaits Birth of Twins Carried By Husband's Sister"

Wow.  What a headline.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

A single episode 40 years ago?

Steve Shiffrin needs to re-read what I wrote.  He accuses me of "catapulting" my disagreements with Ted Kennedy over abortion and stem cell research into a claim that Kennedy did not impose his religion on himself.  He then declares me to be guilty of a "cheap exaggeration."  But if Steve goes back to what I wrote he will find that my discussion of Kennedy's views about abortion and embryo-destructive research was entirely in the context of explaining why I disagree with Steve about whether Kennedy should be regarded as a champion of social justice.  (I expressly noted that, since Steve and I disagree on some important points as to what constitutes social justice, I can entirely understand why he thinks that Kennedy deserves to be so regarded.)  Of course, I could have marshaled what I regard as Kennedy's grave injustices against the unborn as a failure of (among other things) fidelity to his Catholic faith, but that would have begged the question against Steve and others who do not share my view that advocacy of legal abortion and its funding and embryo-destructive research is a grave injustice.  So I kept the focus on patterns of conduct by Joseph, John, and Edward Kennedy that practically everyone would agree cannot be squared with Catholic faith.

Ted Kennedy's conduct at Chappaquiddick was, as Steve himself says, and as I'm sure all Catholics and other men and women of good sense would agree, reprehensible.  But, as my article with Professor Quinn makes clear, his bad behavior in the matter was not confined to what happened on the evening of the accident and on the morning that followed. Nor, as the historical record shows, did his immoral conduct (in which I personally would include the calumniation of Robert Bork, though perhaps Steve will disagree about that) begin or end with Chappaquiddick.  Steve says, "to telescope a man's life into a sinful episode 40 years ago, and to portray it as the way Kennedy lived his life as a Catholic is indefensible,"  Happily for purposes of resolving the questions in this debate (though quite unhappily in every other way), there is plenty of evidence in the record to show that Kennedy's misconduct was frequent and often scandalous (quite literally so, especially for his sons and nephews---people who are familiar with Kennedy's own testimony in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial will know all about that).  The details are available in amply documented published accounts.  If, to sustain his accusation that what I've said about Ted Kennedy is "indefensible," Steve wants to claim that there is no evidence beyond "a sinful episode 40 years ago" for Kennedy's blatant disregard for Catholic moral principles, I would urge him to have a look at even so sympathetic a review of Kennedy's life as Adam Clymer's recent Edward M. Kennedy:  A Biography.  Clymer, the New York Times writer once unflatteringly characterized by George W. Bush when the then newly elected President didn't realize the microphone was still on, admires Kennedy and likes his politics, giving him high marks for his career in the Senate.  But even this work dispels what might be called the "single episode 40 years ago" thesis. (Needless to say, less sympathetic writers leave the thesis utterly in tatters.)

If I'm right about the way Catholics like Joseph, John, and Ted Kennedy exploited their Catholic religious identity politically while disregarding key elements of it in their personal lives (refusing, as Professor Arkes put it, to impose their religion even on themselves), and if I am also correct in saying that at least some Catholics (including perhaps some Catholic leaders) remained silent, and even played along with it in the hope of benefiting the Catholic faith, are there lessons we should draw from it?  Does Catholic legal and political theory have anything useful to contribute to understanding the relationship between personal character, religious authenticity and integrity, and statesmanship?  No one would say that personal recititude and integrity are sufficient for sound statesmanship.  (A virtuous individual may govern imprudently and even foolishly.)  But are they necessary?  If less than strictly necessary, are they more than a little desirable?  Can it ever be "good for the Church" for a Catholic political figure to secure an unjustified reputation for fidelity to its teachings in the way he leads his life?  Is it ever "better for the faith" that a Catholic leader with an unjustified reputation for religious fidelity is able to hang on to that reputation and not be exposed?

A justified cavil from a reader

An MoJ reader has written to express agreement with what I posted about the Kennedys, but to "cavil" as he put it, on one point.  I said that JFK did not "even try" to impose his religion on himself.  The reader points out that none of us can say that definitively, since no one can read another's heart.  He's right.  I should have said that nothing in the historical record demonstrates efforts by Kennedy before or during his presidency to stop committing adultery---on moral grounds, at least. There was a point shortly before his election as President when he lamented to a confidant that it would be impossible, as a practical matter, to continue his womanizing while in the White House.  Very quickly after his inauguration, however, he discovered ways to keep it going.  There is much in the record to show that after acts of adultery he immediately began planning future such acts and making the arrangements necessary to pull them off without being exposed and damaged politically.

Robert George and Ted Kennedy

I would make a couple of points concerning Robert George’s claims about Ted Kennedy. It is true that Ted Kennedy does not give as detailed an account of his moral failures in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne as does Robert George. He does take full responsibility; he agrees that his actions on that night, particularly in failing to promptly report the accident, were flawed, wrongheaded, terrible, and inexcusable.

I am not a criminal lawyer, but I suspect that Kennedy might have been guilty of manslaughter in this incident. I do not know how much he had been drinking when he left the party. Putting that aside, I do not know how much the fact that he suffered a concussion upon impact would complicate a prosecution for his actions after he emerged from the water. I am not at all sure that she was alive when Kennedy passed the first house. But I do not think it matters in generally assessing his conduct. He does admit to a number of self-serving motives that went through his head after he emerged from the water. And, however, clouded his mind might have been, his actions were reprehensible.

Nonetheless, to telescope a man’s life into a sinful episode 40 years ago, and to portray it as the way Kennedy lived his life as a Catholic is indefensible.

Similarly to catapult one’s disagreements with Kennedy over abortion and stem cell research (my views by the way on these subjects are more complicated than George assumes) into a claim that Kennedy did not impose religion on himself is cheap exaggeration.

Steve Shiffrin, "Cheap Humor," and the Kennedys

I disagree with Steve Shiffrin's claim that Hadley Arkes's remark amounts to "cheap humor."  On the contrary, it is humor that makes a telling and important point.  Joseph P. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and Edward M. Kennedy (until public revelations of his conduct made it no longer possible) each depicted himself, or permitted his political machinery to depict him, as a man who was loyal in belief and practice to Catholic teaching.  They used their professed Catholicism to paint a false picture of themselves for political purposes.  They sought to deceive the voting public, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, about the kind of men they were, and they exploited the image they created of themselves as dedicated Catholics who lived by the teachings of the Church.  I certainly join Steve in suggesting that readers have a look at Ted Kennedy's autobiography True Compass, but they should read it with the history of manipulation of this sort by the Kennedy family and its public relations machinery very much in mind.  Even in that book, in which he purports to accept responsibility for his widely known failings, Ted Kennedy does not come clean on his culpability for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick.  For the facts, please see my article with the historian Demot Quinn here:  http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzMyNTgxMmExNzBiOTMzZWY2YjZmZTQ1MjZkZmQ2MDY=  I would be happy to hear from anyone who would like to contest on even a single point the accuracy of our account.  If readers agree that what we report is true, I would ask them to bear those facts in mind when they find Ted Kennedy in True Compass saying, "I have fallen short in my life, but my faith has always brought me home."

Steve and I have some important differences, I suspect, on what constitutes social justice, though I'm sure we have a good deal of agreement, too.  On the points of difference, his beliefs no doubt are generally in line with those that Ted Kennedy stood for.  Since I'm on the other side, I do not share what I take to be Steve's view that Kennedy was a champion of social justice, though I can see why he does.  Kennedy's determined efforts to keep abortion legal and largely unrestricted, to pay for it with public funds, and to make it more widely available and easily accessible were, in my view, grave violations of justice and human rights.  Ditto for his work to promote and publicly fund biomedical research in which nascent human beings are deliberately destroyed and dissected in the embryonic stage of development to produce pluripotent stem cells.  There were, to be sure, some human rights issues, especially in the international field, on which Kennedy got it right in my view, and I would not withhold praise for him for those.  I cannot, however, join Steve (if I've understood him correctly) in characterizing Kennedy as someone whose overall record is to be praised from a social justice perspective.

On Joseph P. Kennedy's profound contempt in practice for teachings of the faith he purported to hold dear, see Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.  Readers who do not know much about the elder Kennedy will likely be shocked not only by his unremitting philandering, but also by his cruelty, dishonesty, personal viciousness, and anti-semitism.  On JFK's conduct, one need not turn to authors who are especially critical of him.  All one needs to know to assess the validity of Arkes's pointed remark can be found in material contained in An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, by Kennedy supporter Robert Dallek. (If you are interested in reading what more critical biographers have to say, see A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy by the historian Thomas Reeves and The Dark Side of Camelot by journalist Seymour Hersh.)  Like his father, JFK was not merely a man who occasionally gave in to temptation but then repented, sought forgiveness, and tried to live uprightly.  He really did, as Arkes puts it, refuse to impose his religion on himself---or even to try.  (In fairness, there is nothing in JFK's record to match the cruelty or anti-semitism of his father.)

There were those, including some Catholics, and almost certainly some ecclesiastical leaders, who knew perfectly well that Joseph Kennedy and John Kennedy were publicly misrepresenting themselves as men who led lives in conformity with Catholic teaching.  Some of these people, thinking that John F. Kennedy's political success would redound to the benefit of Catholics and the Catholic faith in America, abetted the misrepresentations.  Most Catholics and others in those days did not know the truth, and many were very happy to believe that the charming, attractive, witty, and very publicly Catholic JFK was a devout member of the faith who, though a sinner like the rest of us, tried hard to live up to its teachings.  Some time back, I found in my father's study, a kind of relic of those days.  It is a pamphlet written by a Boston priest shortly after Kennedy's election as President providing details of Kennedy's intense piety, and lavishly praising his moral rectitude.  It presents JFK as a model husband, father, and Catholic whose exemplary spiritual and moral life should be emulated by Catholic men. I hope that the author was simply ignorant.  Perhaps he, like so many Catholics of his time, was merely misled by the propaganda machinery. I hope he was not the sort who believed that saying things that are patently untrue can be justified when done for the sake of promoting the Catholic faith.  That is always a devil's bargain.   

Robert George, Religion, and the Kennedy Family

Robert George in his post yesterday observes that, “As Hadley Arkes has remarked, Kennedy evidently regarded his religion as so private a matter that he refused to impose it even on himself.” George comments that this remark applies not only to John Kennedy, but also to Kennedy’s brother Ted and his father Joseph.

I do not believe that cheap humor about the role of religion in people’s lives is amusing or charitable. But it does lead me to recommend two works that discuss the role of religion in the Kennedy family.

The first (which I have recommended before on this site) is a moving essay by Kerry Kennedy (the daughter of Robert and Ethel Kennedy) in Being Catholic Now (itself, a wonderful collection of essays by Catholics and ex-Catholics).

The second is Ted Kennedy’s heartfelt biography True Compass. The book lays out in fascinating detail Kennedy’s commitment to family (with great stories and insights about the family’s members as seen by the youngest of nine children), his perseverance in the face of one tragedy after another, and his interactions with a variety of political figures in pursuing his commitment to social justice.

And Kennedy makes clear throughout that his commitments were rooted in his faith. He observes that both of his parents were deeply religious and that the family prayed together daily.The center of his belief was Matthew, Chapter 25, particularly that calling to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, visit the imprisoned. He says that, “To me, this perspective on my faith has almost literally been a lifesaver. It has given me strength and purpose during the greatest challenges I have faced, the roughest roads I have traveled.”  And, he says, “My faith, and the love of following its rituals, has always been my foundation and my inspiration. Those foundations have been shaken by tragedy and misfortune, but faith remains fixed in my heart as it has since my childhood days. It is the most positive force in my life and the cause of eternal optimism. I have fallen short in my life, but my faith has always brought me home.”

cross-posted at religiousleftlaw.com

Saturday, March 6, 2010

A response to Rob’s question: does providing benefits to same-sex spouses legitimize same-sex marriage?

 

 

Thanks to Rob for posting this important question that emerges from The Washington Post article about the former executive director of the Washington Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities sending a letter to the Archdiocese asking that it revoke its new policy regarding spousal benefits. The Archdiocese has indeed altered its benefits to spouses, but the Post article does not specify what the Archdiocese actually did. As the Archdiocese stated:

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health coverage current employees have as of March 1, 2010. After that, all new employees, and any existing employees who want to change their health coverage, will be covered under a new benefits package. The new plan will provide the same level coverage for employees and their dependents, with one exception: spouses cannot be covered. This change is the direct result of not receiving an adequate exemption for religious organizations in the same-sex marriage legislation.

Mr. (formerly Fr.) Sawina, the former executive director of Catholic Charities, was quoted in the Post article, and Rob has captured some of what Mr. Sawina said in his complaint about the Archdiocese’s policy quoted above. Although I have tried to track down all of what Sawina stated in his letter to the Archdiocese, I have not been successful to date. But here is the entire statement that the Post published and attributed to him:

“Some, including the archbishop, have argued that by providing health care to a gay or lesbian spouse we are somehow legitimizing gay marriage,” said Sawina, a former priest. “Providing health care to a gay or lesbian partner—a basic human right, according to Church teaching—is an end in itself and no more legitimizes that marriage than giving communion to a divorced person legitimizes divorce, or giving food or shelter to an alcoholic legitimizes alcoholism.”

Rob has asked what should the Archdiocese have said in its letter. Well, before tackling that issue, which I shall not do in this posting, a few questions must be raised about the Post’s quotation of Mr. Sawina. I shall do my best to provide answers to the issues that I raise.

The first point concerns his claim that “providing health care benefits to a gay or lesbian partner—a basic right, according to Church teaching—is an end in itself...” I disagree. First of all, while the Church has a strong stand on ensuring basic health care to all persons, it is quite another thing to insist that this noble teaching mandates the Church to provide health care benefits to the gay or lesbian partners of any of its employees. This claim cannot pass the muster of the Church’s definition of a family that “is based on marriage, that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman which is constituted in the freely contracted and publicly expressed indissoluble bond of matrimony and is open to the transmission of life.” To do what Mr. Sawina asserts the Church should do would be to coerce her into supporting a relationship that defies her teachings. To borrow from Margaret More Roper’s words, we know what it would mean if the Church were to do what Mr. Sawina asks—it would mean that Catholic Charities has conceded that it is paying benefits to a homosexual partner in contradiction of the Church’s teachings, and this would be an endorsement, perhaps indirect, but an endorsement nonetheless, of “same-sex marriage.”

Mr. Sawina then goes on to argue that payment of the benefits themselves is itself independent of this recognition of same-sex marriage. He argues that it is like other ends which “no more legitimizes that [same-sex] marriage than giving communion to a divorced person legitimizes divorce...” Here Mr. Sawina fails to take stock of what the Church teaches. Assuming that the communion minister is aware of the existence of a particular divorce, the minister can still give communion to the “innocent” party, that is, not the person who sought the divorce or whose actions precipitated the divorce. Surely giving the innocent victim of divorce communion does not legitimize a divorce for which that person is not responsible. But Mr. Sawina’s quotation does not take stock of this important point.

Mr. Sawina then goes on to construct another flawed analogy. He further contends that it is like other ends which “no more legitimizes that [same-sex] marriage [than] giving food or shelter to an alcoholic legitimizes alcoholism.” Well, first of all the Church acknowledges that alcoholism can be a disease if it is not caused by conscious and intentional abuse of alcohol that can be stopped and restarted by the person consciously and voluntarily abusing alcohol. But Mr. Sawina is not talking about this; rather, he is arguing that giving food or shelter to an alcoholic legitimizes alcoholism. It does not. The Church is feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless. It is not supporting alcoholism. Having worked in the Church’s homeless shelters in the past, I am also aware of the efforts made to assist with treatment alcoholics who come into shelters administered by the Church. And, treatment does not include giving alcohol to alcoholics. But if the Church were to give alcohol to alcoholics, then its actions could be construed as legitimizing alcoholism—but this is not what the Church does.

 

RJA sj

 

Was Kennedy's speech an effort to privatize religion?

Although John F. Kennedy declared that he believed in an America where the separation of church and state is "absolute," I doubt that he (or Ted Sorenson, for that matter) had any very firm views on the most significant issues about the proper role of religion in civic life.  The point of the Houston speech was to reassure Protestants---especially those whose views had been shaped by Paul Blanshard's American Freedom and Catholic Power, and the mentality that produced that unfortunate polemic---that he would govern in accordance with American principles, not Catholic dogma.  He wanted Protestants and others to rest easy in the confident belief that the Pope would not be dictating U.S. policy in a Kennedy administration.  From our perspective today, it's amusing to think of people worrying that John F. Kennedy (or his father Joe or his brother Ted) would be taking orders from the Pope  . . . about anything.  As Hadley Arkes has remarked, Kennedy evidently regarded his religion as so private a matter that he refused to impose it even on himself.

How Many Chess Players Does the Pope Have?

Story here:

To the tune of "Eddie the Eagle" and the Jamaican bobsled team comes this story of Don Valerio Piro, representing the Vatican in the upcoming European chess championship.

Thanks to Mark Kende for the link!

Well done, Aidan O'Neill!

MOJ-friend Aidan O'Neill manages deftly to use a comment on a case involving traffic laws in Scotland as an occasion to reflect interestingly on More, Aquinas, Plato, and Aristotle.  Nice!