Sunday, March 20, 2011
A cautionary reminder about government involvement with, and support for, religious (?) schools, over at Sightings:
Sweden, by some standards one of the world’s most secular countries, passed a new education law stipulating that public schools must teach their subjects in a “non-confessional” and “objective” manner. The law applies to all schools, including independent Christian and Muslim schools, because they, too, receive funding from the state. . . .
Here's George Weigel, reflecting on "Italy at 150." After explaining why -- despite the romantic regrets of some -- the loss of the Papal States to Garibaldi and his crowd was, in fact, a blessing for the papacy -- and the Church -- he writes:
The key figure in this, it seems ever more clear, was the immediate successor to Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII. Rather than behaving like a petulant dispossessed minor Italian noble, Leo set about engaging modernity in his own distinctive way, thereby laying the groundwork for the exercise of new forms of papal power. He thought through the challenges of political modernity and the modern, secular state in a series of encyclicals; their literary style tends toward the higher baroque, but the trenchancy of Leo’s thought makes them worth plowing through today. Leo fostered a Catholic intellectual renaissance by encouraging study of the original texts of Thomas Aquinas, whose political theory he himself used to launch modern Catholic social doctrine, one of the three mega-proposals for ordering the human future on offer in the world today (the others being jihadist Islam and the pragmatic-utilitarian ethos embodied in American consumerism and popular culture). . . .
None of this would have been possible if Leo had been stuck managing a minor European state in the middle of the Italian peninsula and trying to reconcile his evangelical functions as Successor of Peter with the requirements of daily statecraft. Nor would we have seen the historic accomplishments of the man who brought the Leonine papacy to its apogee, John Paul II, the pivotal figure in the collapse of European Communism. John Paul deployed the moral weapons that Leo began to develop, and showed them to be singularly effective in bringing to an end the greatest tyranny in human history. The victory of freedom over Communism had many authors, to be sure. But in the judgment of serious Cold War historians, the pivotal moment in the drama that became the Revolution of 1989 was John Paul II’s first pilgrimage to his Polish homeland in June 1979: a moment made possible, in no small part, by the victory of Italian secularists over Pius IX in 1861 and 1870. . . .
"She moves in mysterious ways", indeed.
There has been, in relatively recent months, a fair bit of discussion around the Catholic and legal sections of the blogosphere about the Natural Law and its role / place / content / foundations. This lecture, delivered by Judge O'Scannlain at Fordham in November of 2010, is well worth a read. Judge O'Scannlain engages, inter alia, natural-law-thinker Hadley Arkes (Amherst) and Justice Scalia.
For some other MOJ posts -- including, specifically, thoughts by Patrick Brennan -- on the question of the natural law and American constitutional doctrine, go (e.g.) here, here, here, and / or here.
Among other things, Judge O'Scannlain explains why he "as a judge, [does not] have the authority to strike down a statute, simply because I think it violates the natural law." At the same time, the natural law is "relevant to judging" [that is, relevant to exercising the power given to federal courts by our Constitution] "in two major ways: one rather technical, and the other more abstract."
I recently came across an announcement for a four-session colloquium that will take place on four successive dates running from September to October 2011 that should be of interest and concern to the contributors and readers of the Mirror of Justice. Members of the academic communities at Fordham University, Fairfield University, Yale Divinity School, and Union Theological Seminary are sponsoring this program which is entitled “More Than A Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church.” Information about this program is hosted on a web log at Fairfield University which is available here. As readers and contributors are aware, we at the Mirror of Justice have frequently addressed issues related to topics concerning human sexuality in the past. I am reasonably confident that we will continue to do so in the future.
The conveners of “More than a Monologue” state that they “are coming together to change the conversation [and perhaps the teachings] about sexual diversity and the Catholic Church.” Apropos of this, the web log further indicates that:
For too long, the conversation on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in the Roman Catholic Church has been only a monologue — the sole voice being heard is that of the institutional Catholic Church. We must engage in more than a monologue by having a 21st century conversation on sexual diversity, with new and different voices heard from.
The four sessions that will be offered are entitled: (1) Learning to Listen: Voices of Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church; (2) Pro-Queer Life: Youth Suicide Crisis, Catholic Education, and the Souls of LGBTQ People; (3) Same-Sex Marriage and the Catholic Church: Voices from Law, Religion, and the Pews; and, (4) The Care of Souls: Sexual Diversity, Celibacy, and Ministry.
Many of us who contribute to the Mirror of Justice have previously addressed most, if not all, of these issues with a variety of perspectives.
The organizers of this program also claim that “This series will show the variety of viewpoints on issues of sexual diversity among Catholics.” As just pointed out, they also claim that “the sole voice being heard is that of the institutional Catholic Church.”
I wonder if this is an accurate description of the program and the situation which its organizers describe. First of all, many of the currently advertised speakers are well known for their views on human sexuality and their criticism of or disagreement with Catholic teachings. I cannot see how they contend that “the sole voice being heard is that of the institutional Catholic Church.” Moreover, the modifier “institutional” in describing the Catholic Church is problematic. In the hope that there is more to this program than is currently advertised, I realize that there may be other speakers not listed on the web site who may very well explain the Church’s position on these neuralgic issues and why she teaches what she teaches. However, the diverse voices that are currently billed on the website are not really known for supporting the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, yet, as I have stated, their views and their works are well known and well publicized. It is a misrepresentation to imply that their voices are not heard on these critical issues since the only voice heard is that of “the institutional Catholic Church.”
If the organizers of “More than a Monologue” intend on presenting more than a monologue, I look forward to hearing about who will be the speakers scheduled to explain with fidelity the “what” and the “why” of the Church’s teachings. As the program is currently structured, I do not see this being any part of their offer. If I may borrow from Clara Peller, where’s the debate? Is it conceivable that the sponsors are more interested in convincing the audiences that the Church’s teachings are wrong and their challenges are correct? If so, a monologue will suit the cause.
RJA sj
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Our own Rob Vischer gets a great shout-out from National Jurist as one of 23 law professors "you should take before you die." Heck, no need to wait that long. . . .
Friday, March 18, 2011
I've had a chance to read the Court's decision as well as the three concurring opinions and the dissent. I'm still processing it, but here are some highlights.
The breakdown of votes was 15-2 on the central issue of whether Italy had violated Article 2 of Protocol #1 (the State's obligation, in the discharge of its educational function, to "respect the right of parents to ensure such education . . . in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions") or Article 9 of the Convention ("the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"). Of the three concurrences (representing four judges), one (Judge Bonello's) would have gone considerably further than the Court did, one (garnering two votes) signed on to the Court's decision "not without some hesitation," and the last one (by Judge Power) seemed largely to agree with the scope of the majority's decision.
The Court spent considerable time examining (1) the March 2005 judgment of the Veneto Administrative Court as to the symbolic meaning of the crucifix; (2) the April 2006 judgment of the Italian Consiglio di Stato (the highest administrative court) of April 2006 as to the same; (3) the view of the Corte di Cassazione (Italy's highest court) on related issues of secularism; (4) the history of Italy's domestic law and practice with respect to the crucifix in public schools; and (5) the law and practice of various member states with respect to the issue of religious symbols in public schools. This was all crucial material because it set the stage for and really grounded the Court's eventual conclusions. The Court adduced from this survey the reality that there is simply nothing approaching a European consensus involving the state's display of religious symbols. Courts even within Italy are divided on these issues. Even more than this, the Court's extensive examination revealed just how plural and conflicting the policies and approaches of the various member states truly are, perhaps the most interesting point of which is that "[i]n the great majority of member States . . . the question of the presence of religious symbols in State schools is not governed by any specific regulations."
After reviewing the decision below and the arguments of the parties (including Joe Weiler's position...in which the Court specifically mentioned that line about "Americanisation"...like a shark to chum), the meat of the decision begins at par. 57. To my mind, what is most striking about the decision is that it really analyzes the issues through the prism of public education, and what a public education ought to mean. Article 2 is foregrounded.
The Court says that while the State must help to maintain "public order, religious harmony and tolerance in a democratic society," (60), that obligation does not mean that "parents can require the State to provide a particular form of teaching." The setting of curriculum, says the Court, is a matter for the State, and so long as "information or knowledge" is being "conveyed in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner, enabling students to develop a critical mind" and without "indoctrination," the parents of students cannot complain. (62) For me, these claims brought to mind the debates in the Mozert case, but that is a subject for another time.
How does the crucifix fit in here? The Court says that "the decision whether crucifixes should be present" in public schools "forms part of the functions assumed by the respondent State in relation to education and teaching" and that it is therefore within the compass of Article 2 as well.
What is the meaning of the crucifix? "[T]he crucifx is above all a religious symbol . . . . The question whether the crucifix is charged with any other meaning beyond its religious symbolism is not decisive[.]" (66) The Court therefore did not decide for itself whether the crucifix partook of an identitarian or cultural meaning independent of and in addition to its religious meaning. But it accepted that the State (here Italy) believed that the crucifix was a symbol with multiple meanings, some of which were foundational as to its civic traditions, and...and here is the key..."the decision whether or not to perpetuate a tradition falls in principle within the margin of appreciation of the respondent State." (68)
The concept of the margin of appreciation, interestingly enough, in some ways is similar to the doctrine of subsidiarity (see Prof. Paolo Carozza's excellent work on this issue) and the concept was absolutely crucial to the Court's judgment. Because of the well-documented lack of consensus among and even within the European states, and because the crucifix was a "passive symbol" (compare the Folgero and Zengin cases out of Norway and Turkey, respectively -- par. 71) whose purpose was not "indoctrination," the decision whether to retain the crucifix fell within Italy's margin of appreciation. (70-72).
More thoughts after further rumination.
This early report indicates that the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reversed the earlier decision on the permissibility of the crucifix in Italian public schools. They have been deemed permissible. More anon, after I've read the decision (I'd be grateful for comments from readers with knowledge of or links to the decision).
UPDATE: The decision is here.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
For those interested in retributive justice, Mark White has posted the introduction to a volume dedicated to the subject. The volume itself [self-promotion alert...check out the cool new cover!!] is here.
Rob mentioned this a few weeks ago, but if you are in the New York City area tomorrow or Saturday, I hope you will consider coming to a conference organized by Professor David Gregory here at St. John's Law School, The Theology of Work and the Dignity of Workers. Dave has put together many wonderful, interesting, and eclectic panels and speakers. Hope to see you here.
So there is a debate about whether Christians are obsessed with homosexuality and abortion. Well, some people seem to be obsessed with homosexuality and abortion, but is it Christians? I don't think so. For heaven's sake, just tune in to network TV for a few hours, or watch the Academy Awards broadcast, or visit a university, or talk to people in Hollywood or San Francisco or Hyde Park or on the Upper West Side. Is there a cause more fashionable in the elite sector of the culture than "gay rights"? Many universities have a half dozen or more LGBTQ,etc. organizations and support groups (not to mention official university offices to provide support and even academic departments); few have support groups for morally conservative students wishing to live chaste lives. Dissent from the campus orthodoxy is scarcely tolerated in some universities and not tolerated at all in others. And who is it, by the way, who is insisting on their views about homosexuality (and sexuality generally) being taught to children in public schools---even over parental objections? Christians? Ha. (Not in Princeton anyway.) And then there is abortion. I don't doubt their sincerity and good faith, but a vast number of people in the media, the entertainment industry, the academy, and the elite professions regard abortion as a sacrosanct constitutional right that must be protected at all costs--even if it means supporting late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, live birth abortions, and sex-selection abortions, and imposing on the consciences of people (including pro-life physicians and other health care workers) who regard direct abortion as homicidal and gravely unjust. One might say they are . . . obsessed.
If you are a Catholic who sometimes watches network television, ask yourself these two questions: How often have you heard your priest preach on homosexuality and abortion? How often have you watched a preachy TV show or movie (or an interview with an actor or singer or other celebrity) pushing a liberal line about sex or abortion?
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
