Let's suppose we did a poll in Minnesota on the question of whether non-marital sexual cohabitation is morally wrong. Would anyone be surprised if the results were something like the following?
Age 18-34: 33%
Age 65+: 70%
No college: 60%
College grad: 32%
Twin Cities metro: 40%
Rest of State: 59%
I wouldn't be in the least surprised by results such as these. In fact, I'd be surprised if the results were strongly at variance with them. Now, if that's right, how would we explain it? Perhaps we would say that part of the disparity is explained by whether a person has personal friends who are in cohabitating relationships. Would we be tempted to say that the people who have moral objections to cohabitation "tend to speak in more fear-based terms"? Of course, people who do have those objections (I'm one) "fear" (entirely reasonably) that cohabitation tends to undermine the marriage culture. And they "fear" (entirely reasonably) the social consequences of the erosion of the marriage culture. Does that make their opinions "fear-based"? In a sense, yes---but referring to their concerns simply as "fear-based" hardly does justice to their view.
Now, would we say of younger people, "the fear theme tends not to be as readily discernible"? Perhaps we would, since rightly or wrongly (I say wrongly) fewer young people "fear" the social consequences of widespread cohabitation (or out-of-wedlock childbearing, or unilateral divorce). But then, might we say of those young people who do not have moral objections to cohabitation that they "tend to speak in more relativism-based terms"? One might very well say that, especially if one has taught introductory moral philosophy to college students.
One thing I certainly don't think would be warranted is any suggestion that those who do not object to cohabitation are likely to have a truly rational basis for their views, while those who do object are probably motivated by irrational or purely emotional factors ("fear"). (I don't think Rob was making such a suggestion in the case of polling in Minnesota about the amendment defining marriage, though perhaps others would make it.)
The Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University School of Law (for more information, come to CLR Forum) is pleased to announce an exciting new seminar for Spring 2012, Colloquium in Law: Law and Religion.
This course invites leading law and religion scholars to make presentations to a small audience of students and faculty. The following speakers have confirmed:
January 30: Philip Hamburger (Columbia University School of Law)
February 13: M. Cathleen Kaveny (Notre Dame Law School)
March 5: Joseph Weiler (NYU Law School)
March 19: Michael McConnell (Stanford Law School)
April 2: Justice Antonin Scalia
April 16: Ayelet Shachar (University of Toronto Faculty of Law)
Topics will be announced shortly.
Each session of the Colloquium will run from 4:00 to 6:00 in the third-floor faculty library. Interested faculty members in the New York area and beyond are invited to attend and participate.
Please email the Colloquium’s co-organizers, Marc DeGirolami ([email protected]) or Mark Movsesian ([email protected]), if you would like to attend.
The Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, at Catholic University, is hosting a single-day conference on the CUA campus dedicated to "Tuition Tax Credits: A Catholic Schools Perspective." More information (including registration info) is available here. Speakers include Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington; Marie Powell, Executive Director for Catholic Education USCCB; John Carr, Executive Director for Peace, Justice and Human Development USCCB; and many others.
Here is an address delivered last night at the University of Pennsylvania by Philadelphia's (still relatively new) Archbishop Charles Chaput on human dignity. Drawing on, among others, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Hans Jonas, and the American Founders, Archbishop Chaput makes the argument that there is nothing distinctly (properly understood) Catholic about the respect for human dignity.
In November 2012, we'll be voting in Minnesota on a constitutional amendment allowing marriage only between a man and a woman. Today's Star Tribune carries the results of a survey showing that the state's residents are evenly split on the question, but there are interesting generational, educational, and geographical divides:
Age 18-34: 33% favor the amendment
Age 65+: 70% favor the amendment
No college: 60% favor the amendment
College grad: 32% favor the amendment
Twin Cities metro: 40% favor the amendment
Rest of state: 59% favor the amendment
I'm not exactly sure what this means for the way the debate about SSM should unfold here or elsewhere. I would guess that part of the disparity is explained by a person's exposure to, and friendship with, gays and lesbians. In my experience, for example, older voters tend to speak in more fear-based terms when talking about SSM. For younger voters, the fear theme tends not to be as readily discernible. This does not mean that a campaign to persuade the 18-34 crowd to support the amendment cannot be effective; it just means the campaign needs to begin from a different premise than it would for older generations. My colleagues Mark Osler and Teresa Collett contributed to the debate here with a point/counterpoint in the Star Tribune.
In 2011, Oklahoma has experienced two blizzards, tornadoes, the hottest July of any state in the nation's history, and now an earthquate. We are waiting for the hurricane and volcano! St. Gregory's University, one of the best kept secrets in Catholic higher education, experienced significant damage to its main building in the recent earthquake. Thankfully no one was hurt. St. Gregory pray for the university bearing your name.
This Thursday, November 10 at 4:00 PM at the Corboy Law Center of Loyola University Chicago, I will be delivering the third annual John Courtney Murray, S.J. lecture. This year's lecture is entitled "The Meaning of Social Justice in Catholic Thought." If you are in the vicinity of Chicago, you are most welcome to attend. A reception, where discussion and debate are welcome, will follow the lecture.
Ryan Anderson, criticizing a new book by Peter Wehner and Arthur Brooks, calls out conservatives for not paying more sustained attention to the articulation of sound principles of social justice in a capitalist system. An excerpt:
When the godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote Two Cheers for Capitalism, he intentionally held back from giving it a resounding three cheers. He knew there were downsides, and that conservatives had to be honest about these in order to address them adequately. But the conservative message about capitalism today glosses over these facts, proposes no principles of justice, and fails to engage—let alone persuade—our fellow citizens who worry about our economic order. Conservatives writing in defense of democratic capitalism need to spend less energy fighting off communism, and more energy developing a conservative vision of social justice, painting a picture of what a better capitalism could look like. If conservatives don’t, the only alternatives will be coming from the Left. And that would be an injustice.
Ron Colombo is intrigued by the new signs of life for "distributism." Should I join the seemingly merry band, or does the distributist "criticism of the market" reflect "a naivete regarding the state that almost defies belief coming from a serious Catholic?" I'm not sure I want to pitch a tent in lower Manhattan, but if the movement lets me get all Chestertonian and discuss weighty topics over a pint in a dark pub somewhere, sign me up.
My son Thomas and I went to a concert of Olivier Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time" this afternoon. Messiaen is a wonderful 20th century French composer who created the quartet in 1941 as a POW in a German camp. Messiaen met a clarinettist, a violinist, and a cellist in the camp; the only guy who had his instrument was the clarinettist, but they managed to get hold of the other instruments and debut the piece in the prison.
The quartet, in 8 movements, is deeply informed by Messiaen's abiding Catholicism. It is "for the end of time" in two senses. Messiaen takes the Book of Revelation as his inspiration. His point of departure is Chapter 10, where the seventh angel descends and announces that "time shall be no longer" -- the end of Time as the end of past and future and the beginning of eternity. Messiaen's time signatures are also iconoclastic in the piece; in fact, sometimes there is no definite rhythm at all (I don't understand how the players were able to be in unison), and it was in this sense too that Messiaen wanted to convey the end of the usual 3/4 and 4/4 regularly measured time in Western classical music. Time is characterized throughout the piece as sad and weary, to be contrasted with the lively music of heaven. The piece was challenging (with lots of unexpected bird twittering), but just great.
Then, Thomas and I came home to watch our Patriots lose, as Time expired.
![388008_318720468144999_100000211464684_1560017_1453051589_n[1]](../../../../../.a/6a00d834515a9a69e2015436b46c7e970c.jpg "388008_318720468144999_100000211464684_1560017_1453051589_n[1]")
![374106_318720568144989_100000211464684_1560019_1093285584_n[1]](../../../../../.a/6a00d834515a9a69e20162fc364c68970d.jpg "374106_318720568144989_100000211464684_1560019_1093285584_n[1]")
