We often remark here at Mirror of Justice that the central questions of Catholic legal theory are those of human anthropology and human nature. (Even if, like Elizabeth Anscombe, I'm not at all sure that [modern] reflection on "the self" is a meaningful or important philosophical question, see Faith in a Hard Ground: Essays on Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics at p. 67.) On what it means for said human nature to be redeemed, here is an excerpt from a homily by my late friend Herbert McCabe, OP on today's feast:
In Mary the redemption reaches down to the roots. In us it is not yet radical, but through our death in Christ and our resurrection in him it is to become so. So far we are only sacramentally redeemed, in the sacramental death and resurrection of baptism - this is something real, it is not merely play-acting, but it is only sacramental, it is not yet in our flesh. The redemption of Mary is pre-sacramental, she does not need baptism or Eucharist, she needs Christ only and has him in her existence in her very flesh. For this reason her redemption, which is pre-sacramental, is a sign and foretaste of the post-sacramental, the life of the risen body, the future kingdom. Her Assumption is the beginning of the resurrection of all who are taken up into Christ’s resurrection.
This, then, is how we are to cash the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This is the difference in practice that the doctrine makes. We are not to look for this difference in the biography of Our Lady, in her character or in her behaviour. In this sense the doctrine is not about that. It is not, for instance, about the fact that she committed no sin. You could hold, as Thomas Aquinas did, that she was sinless and still deny, as he did, the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception does not make that sort of difference to Mary; it did not make any noticeable difference to her - as I have suggested there is no reason to suppose that she knew about it. What it makes a difference to is our understanding of what it means for her to be redeemed and therefore what it will eventually mean for us to be redeemed. To assert this doctrine is to assert the mysterious fact that our holiness will not stop short of the roots of our being, that we too are to become radically holy.
And this is a strange doctrine. At the moment we are forgiven sinners; we are forgiven but we are people who have been sinners, we have been subject to the sin of the world, moreover we have at times opted for the sin of the world. Both things are true: we have contrition for our sins even as we celebrate our forgiveness. Being realistic and honest and therefore contrite about our sins is the sign and result of our being forgiven. (That is why confession is an important part of the sacrament of Penance.)
What we celebrate on the feast of the Immaculate Conception is that Christ’s love for us brings us further than this. What he wants for us is not just that we should be forgiven sinners but that we should be as though sin had never been. Redemption for us will involve a rebirth from an immaculate conception. Our redemption will not just be the successful end of a journey, the triumphant culmination of the history of man, but in some utterly mysterious way we will be freed from our history, or our history will be taken up into some totally new pattern in which even our sins become part of our holiness. We will somehow be able to accept them as God accepts them. There will be no more sorrow for sin, no more remorse over the past, no more contrition; we will be radically and totally free: ‘And all things shall be well and all manner of things shall be well ... when the fire and the rose are one’ (God Matters, pp. 213-14).
I've been in Geneva the past few days, visiting a Sarah Lippert, a UST graduate currently interning at the Caritas in Veritate Foundation in Geneva, supporting the work of the Permanent Mission of the Holy See to the UN in Geneva, through UST's Post Graduate UN Internship program. Yesterday, Sarah and I went to the 7 pm Mass at this lovely Basilica of Notre Dame in downtown Geneva:
This was the third English language mass of the day at the Basilica, and it was packed. English speakers from all over the globe, from the mostly Phillipino choir, to the first reader who appeared to be from southeast Asia, to the second reader who was clearly American, to the priest with the thickest, most charming Scottish accent I have ever heard. Sarah told me that the young professionals group is large and active. I couldn't help but take some small pleasure at being in the middle of Geneva, listening to this Scottish priest, asking myself "Reformation? What Reformation?"
On Dec. 7, 1965, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis humanae. The Declaration opens with this:
A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. . . .
I'm reading "Bleak House" now for the first time, one of those books that one is supposed to read but whose intimidating size has dissuaded me in the past. By reputation, it's also a book that figures ubiquitously in the 'law and literature' canon (though I cannot imagine that most courses require students to read the whole thing, which is a pity). And, indeed, I can see why from the vantage point of a certain sort of legal academic. The portrait of the law that emerges in the book is not flattering, and there is a good deal of rather generously larded reformist sanctimony in it.
And yet there are parts of "Bleak House" that complicate the nature of Dickens's critique of law in interesting and even brilliant ways. It is notable, for example, that the site of all the foggy, sickly malaise hanging over English society in the book is generated not by a court of law, but a court of equity. It is the endless legal proceeding ostensibly concerning contesting wills in Chancery, and all of its intricate workings and doings and plots to keep the affair going for as long as possible, that is the principal villain of the story. Law as the embodiment and dispensation of human fairness is law in its most detestable state.
"Bleak House" also illustrates the special sort of deformity of mind that is caused particularly by law. One can see this in the tragedy of Richard Carstone, one of the wards of the benevolent John Jarndyce whose interests are implicated in the law suit. Richard begins as a callow and rather inconstant spirit, but still someone of noble instincts. As the book proceeds, his obsession with the law suit and the vindication of his rights under it transforms him. The law suit becomes the only thing he can be constant about. And the legal frame of mind, with its insistence on rationality and rights, is depicted as a kind of psychological crookedness, albeit one that cures, in its way, Richard's own personal flaws.
My edition of "Bleak House" is followed in an appendix by an essay of Chesterton in which he offers this:
Let anyone who thinks that Dickens could not describe the semitones and the abrupt instincts of ordinary human nature simply take the trouble to read the stretch of chapters which detail the way in which Carstone's mind grew gradually morbid about his chances in Chancery. Let him note the manner in which the mere masculinity of Carstone is caught; how as he grows more mad he grows more logical, nay, more rational. Good women who love him come to him, and point out the fact that Jarndyce is a good man, a fact to them solid like an object of the senses. In answer he asks them to understand his position. He does not say this; he does not say that. He only urges that Jarndyce may have become cynical in the affair in the same sense that he himself may have become cynical in the affair. He is always a man; that is to say, he is always unanswerable, always wrong. The passionate certainty of the woman beats itself like battering waves against the thin smooth wall of his insane consistency....
The clumsy journalist would have made Rick Carstone turn on John Jarndyce with an explosion of hatred, as of one who had made an exposure....The great artist knew better; he knew that a good man going wrong tries to salve his soul with the sense of generosity and intellectual justice. He will try to love his enemy if only out of mere love of himself. As the wolf dies fighting, the good man gone wrong dies arguing.
There's a very interesting article on Crux on the debate about the morality of embryo adoption. I agree completely with Janet Smith and Charles Camosy on this -- it's a "generous and charitable act", whether the couple who does this is struggling with fertility issues or not.
Some of the counterarguments strike me as (to use a sophisticated theological term) simply gruesome. Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk argues that: "The only thing you can really do to protect them and to respect their integrity is to pay the bill each month or each year to the company that is pouring fresh liquid nitrogen into the tanks to preserve them.'' I simply don't see how providing the possibility for the child to be born is less respectful of their integrity as human beings. He later argues that an increase in these adoptions “would play into the hands of those who promote IVF and backfire …What we have in the US is an assembly-line manufacturing of human beings, and nobody is batting an eyelash at it,” he said. “This will be just another way to play into the market dynamics. That’s what is ultimately driving all of this.” How is that distinguishable to paying the bill in perpetuity to keep these poor children in a perpetually frozen state? And in what universe would there be so many people thronging to adopt other people's frozen embryo's that they would make a dent in the market forces driving this industry? Those arguments have the same tinge of sophistry as some of the theological arguments against procedures to save women's lives in ectopic pregnancies.
Two highlights for me, at the Pontifical Council for the Laity's International Study Seminar Women and Work that Erika just posted about, were talks by two prominent corporate executives who model Catholic visions of work & family.
One was Clara Gaymard, the CEO of GE France and mother of 9. . She said that she's always asked "how do you balance it all", and she almost never responds to that question. But for this audience, that was the topic of her talk. The first thing she said was, she never asked herself that question. She just always knew that she wanted a large family, and she always knew she wanted to travel, learn things, succeed. She just did it. With respect to "splitting" household duties, she said she hates that idea. She says her philosophy is that everyone does everything together, then it gets done twice as fast. Husband & wife working together get dinner done twice as fast, and every kid has to help. In her work, she says every employee knows that family comes first -- that's just non-negotiable. The head of one of her divisions declared NO EMAILS Friday afternoons -- she didn't want people to get sucked into things over the weekend. (If there's one thing very clear from this conference, it's that European workplaces are, truly, much less hostile to families than US workplaces.) Clara Gaymard has long been one of my heroines. She wrote a marvelous book about her father, Servant of God Jerome LeJeune, who discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, and was first President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Another was Bryan Sanderson, former CEO of BP, now on the Board of the Economist, and, among many other things, Chairman of the Board the Home Renaissance Foundation a think tank dedicated to doing the work we care feminists always say someone should do: "promote a greater recognition of the work that goes into creating healthy and congenial home environments. Individuals grow and develop at home, so it is in society's best interests to look after it."
My topic was: "Motherhood: A burden or Added Value for Business?" Any guesses what I voted for? I'll post a link to the paper when it's up on the conference website.
The International Study Seminar Women and Work on December 4th and 5th 2015, organized by the Pontifical Council for the Laity. Around one hundred people from all over the world will participate: men and women, all experts in disciplines associated to the theme being studied.
Today it is necessary to recognise the important role women play both in public life, for building structures that are richer in humanity, and in family life, for the wellbeing of the family itself and the education of children. Starting from this premise, the Seminar’s goal will be to discuss causes and consequences of today’s dichotomy between family demands and the organization of work. Furthermore, the meeting will seek to analyse and consider paths to leave behind the “either-or” dilemma in which too many women find themselves today, and to propose innovative solutions towards a “one and the other” answer that combines the demands of work and the demands of family life. Proposals will be considered in favour of a greater appreciation of women's work, so that discriminations that women workers still face – like penalization of motherhood and disparity of salaries – might be overcome. Also, there will be analysis of how to bring to light the irreplaceable service that only feminine genius can offer to humanity, for the growth of each person and the building of society.
Finally, with this Seminar the Pontifical Council for the Laity wishes to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the publication of Saint John Paul II’s Letter to Women, in which he stated his heartfelt thanks and appreciation on behalf of the Church towards women involved in professional activities. He addressed them explicitly saying: “Thank you, women who work! … you make an indispensable contribution to … the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.”
The Seminar will gather distinguished speakers from nine countries and there will be ample space for discussion to allow the participation of all present to the reflection. At the end of each study day two participants – a man and a woman – will be charged with providing conclusions of the discussion. The Holy Father Pope Francis will send a message to participants which will certainly give orientations for the work to be undertaken.
Seminar topics:
Women work and they have always done so. Stefano and Vera Zamagni (Italy)
Where feminine genius is to be found: women’s work today around the world. Ester Jiménez (Spain)
Male and female roles: an idea to be discarded?
The paradox of gender theory: recent neurological and psychological research on the masculine and the feminine.Marco Scicchitano (Italy)
The professional roles of men and women: stereotypical or interchangeable? Geneviève Sanze (Central African Republic)
Today’s families and yesterday’s roles? Stereotypes and reality. Josefina Videla (Argentina)
Women at work with difficulties and opportunities
Career and private life: Getting ahead? Holding back? Which equality should we aspire to? Helen Alvaré (USA)
Women in leadership: is there a need for ‘pink quotas’? Ilva Myriam Hoyos (Colombia)
Good looks: an advantage or an obstacle? Maria Teresa Russo (Italy)
Family and work: how to reconcile the two
Effective policies to find a balance. Eugenia Roccella (Italy)
Family: the primary driving force for development. Mina Ramirez (Philippines)
Motherhood: a burden or added value for a business? Elizabeth Schiltz (USA)
Working at home doesn’t stop at the front door: a contribution to the growth of all. Bryan Sanderson (UK)
To foster a feminine presence that can make the world richer in humanity
Educating girls: feminine genius at the service of humanity. Terry Polakovic (USA)
Care ethics: the inestimable value of embracing fragility. Susy Zanardo (Italy)
Career and family: they can be balanced (Testimony) Clara Gaymard (France)
This lively book explains why we need the humanities. It shows how society has long relied on humanities scholarship to address important public policy issues. Donald Drakeman, an entrepreneur and educator, builds a compelling case for the practical importance of the humanities in helping governments make decisions about controversial issues affecting our lives in fields as diverse as healthcare and civil liberties.
Bold, compelling, and accessibly written, Why We Need the Humanities sets out a fascinating case for the importance of humanities research in the modern world.
America is running an editorial called "Repeal the Second Amendment." Although I feel confident that any such repeal, via the procedures set out in the Constitution for amending the Constitution, is and will remain extremely unlikely, and although I am inclined to think that law-abiding, healthy people do and should have a "right" to own (subject to reasonable regulations, etc.) at least some firearms (although I do not own one), I commend the editors for their candor in calling for "repeal" rather than for legislators, officials, or judges to ignore or incorrectly interpret the "embarrassing" provision. If, in fact, the Second Amendment (like, say, part of the Seventh) is an anachronism or (like the Eighteenth) a mistake, a duly ratified process exists for an appropriate response.
In the wake of what the killings at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs, two familiar arguments/charges have resurfaced and circulated widely: The first is that those in the pro-life movement share responsibility for the killings (and other uses of violence against abortion providers) because of what is said to be the irresponsible use of inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., "baby parts"). The second is that those who claim to be pro-life do not really believe what they say they believe because, if they did, they would not condemn such violence but would instead regard it as justified (at least sometimes) and would support its use (at least in some cases).
It is, as I see, very important for those of us who are pro-life to speak to others, about others, and about what abortion is in a way that is truthful and at the same time worthy of the cause and in a way that makes it possible to hear and embrace the Gospel of Life. This can, at least for me, be a challenge. But, I reject the suggestion that, somehow, the killings in Colorado Springs can be blamed on those who have exposed and publicized the truth about what Planned Parenthood does. As for the second resurfaced argument, this 2009 post, by Michael Scaperlanda, strikes as (still) a good response. (And here's one by me, from about the same time.)
With all that said, I recommend spending some time with this exchange between Damon Linker ("The Deeply Irresponsible Rhetoric of the Pro-Life Movement") and Ross Douthat. I have had and appreciated some entirely civil and productive private e-mail conversations about this matter with Linker but, in my view, Douthat's position is the stronger one.
