As my friend Mark Movsesian points out, at the CLR Forum, sometimes it's important for those who criticize a judicial ruling to, well, read the ruling. Like many these days, the NYT editorial writers seem to have become big fans of the Supreme Court's Smith decision (and, by implication, critics of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), as they write: "There is no constitutional precedent for individuals, much less corporations, allowing them to violate generally applicable laws because they may have a religious objection." Well, certainly there are such precedents, though their relevance is limited after Smith. And, in other contexts, I am confident that the NYT thought better of them, and their judicial authors. But, now the conflict is about contraception, and pits many Catholic institutions against the Obama administration, and so the Gray Lady's views . . . evolve.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The NYT flubs the Newland case
"God in the Darkness"
"God in the Darkness" is the title of a post at Vox Nova. The post, by kellyjwilson, is about the presence of God in The Road, by Cormac McCarthy (my favorite living fiction-writer). Check it out.
The LCWR, The Vatican, and The Media
It is not a revolutionary comment to observe that contemporary social debate often lacks substance when it reaches to the public sphere. Too often complex issues, particularly ones involving religion and politics, are mishandled by the media and opposing arguments are oversimplified or sensationalized. Additionally, the debate can often be one that is so uncivil, that the substance is lost in favor of the rhetoric.
One issue coming to the forefront for many Catholics this summer is the tension between the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) and the Vatican following its April report about the LCWR. This week, the LCWR is holding its annual meeting in St. Louis which will include, among other agenda items, dialog concerning the organization's response.
Fortunately, there is an opportunity to hear an in depth discussion from representatives of both sides of the issue. NPR's Terry Gross has interviewed both Sister Pat Farrell, President of the LCWR and Bishop Leonard Blair, author of the Vatican report. Each conversation afforded these individuals an opportunity to answer questions for approximately 40 minutes. While not perfect interviews, these conversations do provide one with a clearer picture of the viewpoint for each side of the issue and both are worth a listen.
Monday, August 6, 2012
John Milton on Secularized Law
Something light for the August heat. From Paradise Lost, Book 5. An exchange between Satan and the
angel Abdiel -- "than whom none with more zeal adored The Deity" -- after Abdiel angrily asks, "Shall thou give law to God? shalt thou dispute With him the points of liberty, who made Thee what thou art, and formed the Powers of Heaven Such as he pleased and circumscribed their being? . . . . His laws our laws; all honor to him done Returns our own."
Whereat rejoiced th’ Apostate, and more haughty thus replied:
That we were form’d then, say’st thou? and the work
Of secondary hands, by task transfer’d
From Father to his Son? Strange point, and new!
Doctrine which we would know whence learn’d: who saw
When this creation was? Remember’st thou
Thy making, while the Maker gave thee being?
We know no time when we were not as now;
Know none before us, self-begot, self-raised
By our own quick’ning pow’r, when fatal course
Had circled his full orb, the birth mature
Of this our native Heav’n, ethereal sons.
Our puissance is our own; our own right hand
Shall teach us highest deeds, by proof to try
Who is our equal: then thou shalt behold
Whether by supplication we intend
Address, and to begirt th’almighty throne
Beseeching or besieging. This report,
These tidings, carry to th’Anointed King;
And fly, ere evil intercept thy flight.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Scholarly Impact and Catholic Legal Education (Part Three)
A few days ago, I began a short series of posts on why scholarly work and scholarly impact are especially important to Catholic legal education, which I conclude with this post today.
The first point, made here, was that a meaningfully Catholic law school must be an intellectually engaged law school, which is not possible without a faculty also engaged in the quintessential intellectual activity of scholarly research and writing.
My second point, made here, was that through scholarly excellence and law school scholarly prominence, we witness to society the vibrancy of intellectual discourse by persons of faith and counter the anti-intellectual stereotype often attaching to religiously-affiliated law schools.
My third point today is that, as Catholic Christians, we have are called to share the Gospel, both directly and indirectly. The central role of scholarly research in our academic vocation is affirmed by no less a Catholic authority than Pope John Paul II the apostolic constitution for Catholic universities, Ex Code Ecclesiae: “The basic mission of a University is a continuous quest for truth through its research, and the preservation and communication of knowledge for the good of society.”
For some of us on law school faculties that directive means writing directly on Catholic legal theory and applying Christian-grounded principles to the legal and social issues of the day. For all of us it means conducting the search for the truth with integrity and dedication. The search for the truth is hard work -– and for Catholic academics that hard work requires scholarly engagement.
Turning again to the words of Ex Corde, for a Catholic university “included among its research activities, therefore, will be a study of serious contemporary problems in areas such as the dignity of human life, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the protection of nature, the search for peace and political stability, a more just sharing in the world's resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level. University research will seek to discover the roots and causes of the serious problems of our time, paying special attention to their ethical and religious dimensions.”
Through our work –- through the excellent quality, regular production, and integrity of our work (comporting with the standards of our discipline) –- we may have a significant influence on the development of the law and of the legal culture. As my former Dean Tom Mengler emphasized (here), one of the most compelling needs for Catholics in this present age involves “the integration of Catholic social and intellectual thought into the mainstream of American legal education.”
And on the call to challenge and inform the culture, Ex Corde speaks as well to the vital importance of scholarly work: “By its very nature, a University develops culture through its research, helps to transmit the local culture to each succeeding generation through its teaching, and assists cultural activities through its educational services. It is open to all human experience and is ready to dialogue with and learn from any culture. A Catholic University shares in this, offering the rich experience of the Church's own culture. In addition, a Catholic University, aware that human culture is open to Revelation and transcendence, is also a primary and privileged place for a fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and culture.”
While our teaching in Catholic law schools advances these goal, we cannot fully participate as academics in the search for the turth without also contributing to the scholarly literature, which reaches audiences well beyond the walls of our own institution and which is preserved in medium so that we can affect the scholarly discourse long after we have departed.
What a tremendous privilege – and a grave responsibility.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
SSM and artificial reproductive technologies
Alana Newman, the daughter of a sperm donor, explains her opposition to SSM through the lens of her concerns about the corresponding increase in the use of artificial reproductive technologies (ART):
Most people approve of gay couples adopting. I am one of these people. Adoption exists as an institution because of human frailty; sometimes people are unable to raise their biological children, but those children still need loving homes. Adoption is not a market that provides children to the adults that desire them. It is for parents to find children who—tragically—cannot be raised by their biological parents. . . . But there’s a big difference between ART and regular adoption. Donor-conception, unlike adoption, is a market where new humans are created to fulfill the demands of the adults that want them. “Commercially conceived” persons are deliberately denied a relationship with one or both of our biological parents. The tragic, primal wound ubiquitous in adoption literature is woven into every commercially conceived person’s life story.
The comment thread raises some interesting questions, including this: if ART is the problem, isn't opposition to SSM a wildly over- and under-inclusive proxy for addressing it?
Saving subsidiarity
Vincent Miller, writing in America:
Critics of the Ryan budget have argued that solidarity—the virtue that impels us to active concern for the needs of others—must be used to balance subsidiarity. While this argument is true, it gives too much away, for subsidiarity is an application of solidarity, not its opposite. Subsidiarity is not a principle of small government. It is a two-edged sword. Subsidiarity warns against the overbearing action of any large social actors and also demands that they render assistance, subsidium, when problems are too large to be handled by smaller, local actors.
Culture war lessons
Corporate social responsibility 101: Corporations should not take a stand on moral issues unless it's a really cool cause that all reasonable and properly formed consumers will likewise support, such as environmentalism or GLBT rights.
Journalism 101: Reporters should be careful to avoid any hint that political bias may influence their work unless it's bias against a position that all reasonable and properly formed readers will likewise reject, such as support for traditional marriage.
UPDATE: Given the concern that I wielded the irony sword clumsily here, let me be more specific. The LA Times columnist sees no problem with Patagonia touting environmentalism, but sees big problems with Chick Fil A, Target, and other companies that have taken conservative political positions or made conservative political donations. More broadly, much of the media coverage that I've read over the years of companies like the Body Shop and Ben & Jerry's has been more laudatory of their courageous stands, rather than condemnatory for their controversial posturing. It's been a much different story with Chick Fil A.
On the second point, I find the tenor of the reporter's social media comments to be troubling. I would think the same of a reporter making quasi-public outrageous comments from the anti-GLBT rights perspective as well.
Sargent Shriver, Robert P. Casey, and the Fate of Pro-Life Liberalism
This morning on Public Discourse, R.J. Snell of Eastern University offers a lovely and moving tribute to the late Sargent Shriver, who was, together with the late Robert P. Casey, among the last of the great pro-life liberal statesmen. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/5992. Casey's pro-life convictions and witness are widely known; Shriver's less so. But, as R.J. shows, Shriver was a forceful and unabashed defender of the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions. And he deserves to be remembered and praised for that.
In the course of his tribute, R.J. gives some attention to a statement of pro-life conviction published at the behest of Casey and Shriver in the New York Times during the Democratic National Convention in July of1992 under the title "A New American Compact."
Among the other signers were Eunice Kennedy Shriver, former Treasury Department Secretary William E. Simon, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Sidney Callahan, Mary Ann Glendon, Michael McConnell (who was then at the University of Chicago Law School), Jon Levenson (of Harvard Divinity School), James Kurth (of Swarthmore College), Rabbis David Novak and Marc Gellman, former New York Governor Hugh Carey, Leon Kass, Nat Hentoff, George Weigel, and Ron Sider---altogether, quite a collection of prominent liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.
I know a bit of the background here because, together with my friend William C. Porth, I composed the original draft of the statement at Governor Casey's request, and discussed it at length with the Governor and the Shrivers at two meetings at the Governor's Mansion in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Their hope was to build a strong and enduring bipartisan pro-life coalition. They viewed the protection of innocent human life as a principle that should transcend the liberal-conservative divide and unite people of goodwill across party lines. They feared that respect for the sanctity of human life was becoming a partisan issue, and that pro-life liberals and Democrats would soon find themselves politically homeless. Of course, what they feared is what has in fact happened. There are no figures in the Democratic Party or the liberal movement today who fill the shoes of Governor Casey and Sargent Shriver. It is difficult to see how any such figure could rise to a position of leadership in the party or movement. And all of us are the poorer for it.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Religious Freedom Issues in Russia
Katrina Lantos Swett and I have published an op ed piece in the Moscow Times on issues of religious freedom in Russia: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russias-failure-to-protect-freedom-of-religion/462957.html. Katrina is President of the Lantos Foundation (named for her late father, Congressman Tom Lantos) and chairs the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, of which I am a member. I had the pleasure of nominating Katrina for the chairmanship. MoJ friend Mary Ann Glendon is one of our two vice chairmen. Under Katrina's leadership, the Commission is flourishing. The quality of cooperation across party lines (four of us are Republican-appointees, four are Democrats) is exemplary. We are also blessed with a superb professional staff, led by former Ambassador Jackie Wolcott. We have no jurisdiction to examine domestic religious freedom issues, but the Commission is working hard to ensure that U.S. foreign policy will give priority to supporting religious freedom and fighting religious oppression across the globe. Speaking for myself, and not for the Commission or in my official capacity as a member, I would point out that domestic failures to respect religious liberty make it more difficult for us to promote religious liberty abroad. The first and most important way for the U.S. government to support religious freedom internationally is by honoring it at home.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
