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.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

By way of complement…

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

By way of complement to other postings of today on this site, it is important for the project of Catholic legal theory and Catholic citizenship to embrace the challenge of democracy: it is hard work, a toil involving love, dedication, determination, and fidelity. To borrow from Lord Acton, the freedom we cherish in this country—for the time being—is not to do that what we want to do but, rather, to do that what we ought to do.

In this context, the twice told theme proposed by Blessed John Paul II is wise guidance for the Catholic practitioner of democracy:

 

“As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into an open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.” Centesimus Annus, N. 46, 1991

 

“[D]emocracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the ‘common home’ where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part.” Evangelium Vitae, N. 20, 1995; “No less critical in the formation of conscience is the recovery of the necessary link between freedom and truth. As I have frequently stated, when freedom is detached from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish personal rights on a firm rational basis; and the ground is laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained will of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public authority.” Evangelium Vitae, N. 96, 1995

 

Our duty is to demonstrate to our fellow citizens why this wisdom is the guidance not for what we want to do but for what we ought to do as fellow citizens of a great democracy faced with great challenges. With such sagacity directing our thoughts and actions, change for the common good is not only possible but probable.

 

RJA sj

 

Assisted-suicide measure defeated in Massachusetts

By Rick Garnett

It was very, very close, but it appears that (even) the voters in Massachusetts rejected the assisted-suicide proposal.  Good.

Horwitz (and Sullivan) on religion and politics

By Rick Garnett

Paul Horwitz has a typically thoughtful post up, at Prawfsblawg, about religion and politics -- including, specifically, the efforts by the Catholic bishops to focus attention on threats to religious freedom -- and the election.  In the comments, responding to the report that many Catholics apparently believe that the Church should focus more on social-justice matters and less on "social issues" like abortion, I wrote that "while I don't think it's realistic to expect Catholic bishops to retreat from their public witness on the abortion question -- it is, for them (as it is for me) a foundational 'social justice' question -- it is essential that this witness not be perceived as (because, in fact, it is not) merely partisan."  Yes, this witness will be criticized, as "partisan", whether it is or not, by partisans, but . . . it must not be.

There will be lots of triumphalism, and lots of despair, around the blogosphere, and also in its Catholic neighborhoods -- I voted for the other guy, and really wish, for the good of the country and the future of my children, that he had won -- and lots of "what if's?" and "here's what really happened" diagnoses.  Two thoughts from this amateur-at-best observer:  First, to me, it appears -- and, I admit, this makes me very sad -- that the HHS mandate, the "war on women" nonsense, the foregrounding of Planned Parenthood, and the association of Republican candidates generally with a few candidates' mis-statements on abortion "worked" for the Democrats.  Apparently, the country has not moved as much in a pro-life direction as I had hoped.  Next, it also appears that the party that is, and that is likely to remain, the party that better advances the causes of legal protections for the unborn, education reform, and religious freedom is getting only negligible support from African-Americans and Latinos.  This cannot -- for the sake of those causes, and also because none of us should tolerate a situation in which party identification is so racially polarized -- continue.

Bruce Frohnen on the Election

By Kevin P. Lee

Bruce Frohnen, who edited the excellent reference,The Encylopedia of American Conservativism, has posted a thoughtful reflection on the election on the "Imaginative Conservative" blog, under the title "How Little we have Lost." Here's a taste:

"It is far beyond time for conservative Americans—and Christians in particular—to put aside the distractions of mass politics for the tactile realities involved in building a decent life. We still need to vote and otherwise get involved, of course, but we need to remember what we are doing: hoping to prevent or mitigate the damage being done to us, not “taking back” a state apparatus that has long been used to reshape our society in unwholesome ways. We must come to recognize that the federal government, to its very core, has become hostile to our very way of life, not a violent oppressor, but nonetheless our adversary as we seek to raise our children, educating them in our faith, our morals, and our traditions. We must build neighborhoods, parishes and other religious and secular communities in which spiritual, intellectual and fundamentally moral lives are possible."

The disciple as citizen and a prayer of the faithful

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

Over the past months, perhaps two or three years, people of good will and the faithful have been praying for our country and the world. Now that the most recent quadrennial exercise of electioneering is over, what prayer might remind the faithful and others of good will that we remain citizens of two cities? The words of Samuel remain as one durable and applicable prayer of reminder, contemplation, and formation:

“Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example, appoint a king over us, like all the nations, to rule us.” Samuel was displeased when they said, “Give us a king to rule us.” But he prayed to the LORD. The LORD said: Listen to whatever the people say. You are not the one they are rejecting. They are rejecting me as their king. They are acting toward you just as they have acted from the day I brought them up from Egypt to this very day, deserting me to serve other gods. Now listen to them; but at the same time, give them a solemn warning and inform them of the rights of the king who will rule them. 1 Samuel 8:5-9

 

 

RJA sj

 

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Archbishop Chaput reviews Gregory's "Unintended Reformation"

By Rick Garnett

At Public Discourse (link).  The review is called "Life in the Kingdom of Whatever" and, unlike some reviews of and reactions to Prof. Gregory's book that I've read, it reflects clearly the author's effort to identify correctly and engage closely the author's arguments.

Monday, November 5, 2012

The $6 Billion Question

By Mary G. Leary

 

Here are some reflections on the eve of election day. People have argued, debates have occurred, pundits have postulated, and the proxies have predicted the "inevitable" effects of the "other side" winning. Similar to young men during the first week of a new dating relationship, candidates have promised to change our lives in countless miraculous and, more than likely, unattainable ways.

Here is one change that would be miraculous and should be attainable: that we have an honest conversation in this country about our societal values. No, I am not talking about those values about which we have heard so much – the values each side righteously claims as their own and indignantly asserts the other side lacks. I am talking about a real test of values: do we value winning or do we value people?

This question came to me this week when the press reported the money spent on federal elections exceeded $6 billion dollars. To put this number in context, this past week we witnessed the devastation by Sandy on the East Coast. Poignant among the many heartbreaking stories was the suffering by homeless children in New Jersey and New York served by the Catholic organization, Covenant House International, whose shelters sustained significant damage. (Full disclosure - I used to volunteer with Covenant House and their current president is a graduate of The Catholic University of America). On a global level, the State Department budget to combat human trafficking and the enslavement of 20 million people throughout the world is a mere $21 million. By some estimates, that $6 billion amount would rebuild half of earthquake stricken Haiti.

Can we imagine what $6 billion could do for victims of disaster, homeless children, or victims of human trafficking? Yet, in the name of values we have spent it elsewhere. All candidates talk about "American values." Wouldn't it be great if our election process actually reflected them?

The Closing Campaign Message in Virginia from our Purportedly "Pro-Life" President

By Greg Sisk

We hardly need speculate as to the candidates' positions or imaginatively attribute sentiments or attitudes about the dignity of unborn human life.  By his choice of a last message to send to voters in Virginia, President Obama offers his unequivocal view on Roe v. Wade and the pro-life cause and his own clear understanding of where Governor Romney stands:

 

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Read Paul Caron's beautiful post

By Rick Garnett

My own sons are 11 and 3 mos., so I won't have the occasion to write such a note for a while, but I thought this letter, from LawBlogKing Paul Caron to his son, who just played his last college soccer game, was beautiful.

Update:  A reader, Peter Meringolo, sent me a similar, and similarly moving, essay, published not long ago in Notre Dame Magazine.

Friday, November 2, 2012

More on the Assisted Suicide Proposal in Massachusetts

By Elizabeth Schiltz

A propos Rick's recent post on the upcoming Massachusetts vote legalizing assisted suicide, John Inazu brought this gripping op ed piece from the NYT to my attention. The author, Ben Mattlin, introduces himself as follows:  "As a good pro-choice liberal, I ought to support the effort. But as a lifelong disabled person, I cannot."  He explains:

My problem, ultimately, is this: I’ve lived so close to death for so long that I know how thin and porous the border between coercion and free choice is, how easy it is for someone to inadvertently influence you to feel devalued and hopeless — to pressure you ever so slightly but decidedly into being “reasonable,” to unburdening others, to “letting go."

. . . a few years ago, when a surgical blunder put me into a coma from septic shock, the doctors seriously questioned whether it was worth trying to extend my life. My existence seemed pretty tenuous anyway, they figured. They didn’t know about my family, my career, my aspirations.

Fortunately, they asked my wife, who knows exactly how I feel. She convinced them to proceed “full code,” as she’s learned to say, to keep me alive using any and all means necessary.

From this I learned how easy it is to be perceived as someone whose quality of life is untenable, even or perhaps especially by doctors.

Unfortunately, I think that perception is just as common in decisions at the beginning of life as at the end of life.

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive