I have been reading with much interest the recent MOJ postings dealing with the hiring of young associates and the enticement of big salaries, power, prestige, etc. Then I recalled the wise words of another lawyer many years ago who counseled about the dangers of these temptations. Perhaps in another context, he could have said this to a young lawyer, whom I shall call Richard, being swayed by the lure: "Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... But for the Wayle's law firm?" RJA sj
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Law Firm Associates...
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Totalitarianism and Democracy
This past weekend I had the opportunity to view the film “John Paul II” starring Cary Elwes (as a young JPII) and Jon Voight (as an older JPII). There were a number of scenes particularly in the first half of the film in which the Polish faithful are seen attending religious gatherings, while government officials or their collaborators are present photographing those attending the Mass or other liturgical celebration. Recently I was talking with someone who mentioned to me that at some of the various pro-life marches that coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade those participating in these marches have also been photographed by persons not participants in the march. I suppose that it is possible that these photographers desired keepsakes that would record an important event, but I suppose it is also possible that the pictures could have been taken for other reasons similar to those depicted in the film on John Paul II.
I was then reminded of something Christopher Dawson said back in the 1930s: “The sphere of action of the State has grown steadily larger until it now threatens to embrace the whole of human life and to leave nothing whatsoever outside its competence.” Perhaps the photographers seen at the pro-life marchers were not agents of the state but simply citizens of a democracy keeping tabs on their fellow citizens with whom they disagreed on the abortion question.
And then I came back to John Paul II who in Evangelium Vitae had this to say: “the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” Perhaps being mindful of the two totalitarian systems under which he lived and that were portrayed in the film I recently viewed, he also said: “In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism” and “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.”
As in the film on John Paul II, there is much to celebrate about the witness of those participating in the pro-life marches. And, as was the case of the photographers depicted in film, there is much to lament in the motivations of some of the photographers whose pictorial skills have been noticed at the pro-life marches. RJA sj
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Libertas Ecclesiae
I would like to express my gratitude to Rick for his reminder that today is Religious Freedom Day [HERE], and to Rick and Rob for their exchange on The Taint of Association (Rob) [HERE] and Detainees and Catholic Charities (Rick) [HERE] . Some may recall that last March I offered a few thoughts about the Harvard/Ropes & Gray issue when a regular contributor to the Boston Globe commented on the pressure put on Ropes & Gray to drop Catholic Charities as a client [HERE] . Rob offered a thoughtful view, with which I agree in principle, by arguing that “it’s a healthy sign of moral engagement when law students challenge a firm’s decision to devote its resources to a particular client or cause”. I know this is a point to which Rob holds dearly because of his response to my posting from last March. But there is a need to be clear about the action that was pursued by the Harvard law students in the Ropes & Gray situation that the three of us have addressed. These students were not engaging on moral grounds using moral means a decision by Ropes & Gray to represent Catholic Charities. They were engaged in tactics unbecoming of reasoned judgment and moral argument—they were threatening; they were bullying; they were harassing; they were intimidating. This was the application of pressure, pure and simple. Ropes & Gray did not respond with persuasive argument and reasoned expression; they succumbed to the power of pressure of those whose actions were not moral engagement. If readers think my remarks harsh, let us reexamine the words of one student who led the crusade: “boycott—slash—picket”, “to shame”, “who in this game [Araujo, here: this is not a game] is maximally positioned to exert pressure on Ropes & Gray? It’s law students…”. (My italics)
The re-visitation of this episode at the core of the discussion between Rick and Rob is a powerful reminder of those who take religious freedom seriously and join in today’s celebration that this vital liberty is still denied by some. Thus, it is important for us who join in this commemoration to remember another lawyer of long ago, Thomas More, who lost his life in the exercise of his proper religious freedom. In a letter to his daughter, Margaret, dated 2 or 3 May 1535 (a few weeks before his execution for high treason), he wrote: “I am, quoth I, the King’s true faithful subject and daily… pray for his Highness and all his and all the realm. I do nobody harm, I say none harm, I think none harm, but wish everybody good. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive in good faith [since he would not bend to Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn] I long not to live.”
I, too, pray for our country, our profession, and our legal system. I wish harm to no one; and, like More, I wish them good. But there is a need to be honest about the tactics of some whose actions trivialize or endanger the proper exercise of religious freedom. To examine the exercise of this right in a moral engagement is understandable; but, to threaten its exercise with tactics such as those used in the matter of Ropes & Gray is objectionable. RJA sj
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
A "Shameful Reversal of Rights"?
Today's Boston Globe carries as its lead editorial a commentary on the Massachusett's legislature's permitting the continuation of the legal process to define constitutionally marriage as the union of one man and one woman. HERE The title of this editorial is: "A Shameful Reversal of Rights." But, is the action a true reversal of any "right"; moreover, is the action of the legislature "shameful"? The answer to each of these questions is no.
The reason why the answer is no relies on a proper understanding of the meaning of equality. While MOJ is not the appropriate forum to develop an in-depth investigation of the concept of equality, which is at the heart of the marriage debate, I hope to develop this inquiry over the coming months. But in the meantime, an initial response to the Globe editorial is in order because of the influence that publication has on the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and elsewhere.
The proposed amendment to the state Constitution that is at the nucleus of this controversy defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, a definition that long existed but was altered by the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in the Goodrich case handed down a few years ago. If the proposed Constitutional amendment is a ban on gay "marriage" as the Globe asserts, it is also a ban on polygamous "marriage" and any other relationship or association that someone erroneously believes to be a "marriage."
The Globe editorial is also highly critical of the use of the procedural mechanism being used to present the amendment and indicates that one of the "key" arguments (namely, a large number of certified signatures on a citizens' petition) is "spurious." I often wonder what the Globe's characterization of this mechanism would be if it were used by advocates for same-sex "marriage" had the Goodrich case been decided differently. In the context of the current use of the legal mechanism to define marriage, the Globe further asserts that "There is no such right" in the Constitution; however, the recent criticism levied by the Supreme Judicial Court against legislative efforts to thwart the process to amend the Constitution would indicate that the Globe's assertion is unfounded.
In presenting the rationale to support this editorial, the Globe appears to rely, in part, on a recent statement by Governor-elect Deval Patrick that yesterday's vote by the state legislature enabling the amendment to proceed is "irresponsible and wrong." Once again, the Supreme Judicial Court has suggested otherwise. However, this does not eliminate the possibility that someone else-- perhaps the Globe or the Governor-elect-- is wrong.
I would like to end this posting with a recollection from my experience as an elementary school student who attended a public school in Massachusetts during the 1950s. Several times during the course of the academic year at either school assemblies or during the broadcasted morning annoucements, Governors' proclamations-- often dealing with some civic-minded subject-- were read to the students. The public readings of these proclamations always ended with the supplication: "God Save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!" In light of the fact that MOJ is a web log dedicated to Catholic legal theory, I shall conclude this post by saying that I shall continue to pray to the Almighty that He may indeed save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that I plan to begin my investigation of equality soon. A blessed New Year to members and readers of MOJ. RJA sj
Monday, January 1, 2007
The Power of the Media and Truth
Yesterday’s New York Times (December 31, 2006) carried an essay by Public Editor Byron Calame entitled "Truth, Justice, Abortion and the Times Magazine." HERE Mr. Calame’s piece represents a effort by the NYT to address errors appearing in the April 9, 2006 influential NYT Magazine article on El Salvador’s laws prohibiting abortion written by Mr. Jack Hitt. HERE As one familiar with pro-abortion campaigns against the legal regimes of some Latin American and other countries that regulate or prohibit abortion, I viewed the Hitt piece as a contribution to the pro-abortion campaigns to amend or repeal the laws of countries that strictly regulate or prohibit abortion. I do not know what Mr. Hitt’s personal views are on abortion; however, he has written on the topic for the New York Times on other occasions. His article on El Salvador appeared to suggest that the laws of this country dealing with this "sensitive" topic (a word twice-used by Mr. Calame in his discussion of abortion) are in need of re-examination if not revision.
Mr. Calame’s piece was written as a response to the concerns and complaints raised by readers of the New York Times that the Hitt article misrepresented the truth about the conviction for homicide of one of the women discussed by Hitt. Mr. Hitt indicated that this woman had an abortion in the eighteenth week of her pregnancy and was sentenced to a thirty-year prison term for violating Salvadorian law. As Mr. Hitt stated in his article, she "was given 30 years for an abortion that was ruled a homicide." However, as Mr. Calame points out, Mr. Hitt and his editors did not verify the accuracy of this claim by consulting the court records of the legal proceedings involved in this case. As it turns out, the woman gave live birth to her child and then strangled her baby. While Mr. Hitt insisted that the purported abortion was ruled a homicide, he, in fact, had portrayed a homicide as an "abortion." I would hasten to add that any abortion is the wrongful taking of any human life, but I digress.
Mr. Calame points out that Mr. Hitt and the editors associated with the publication of his article had ample opportunity to verify the substance of the court proceedings and why the woman was convicted of homicide. He also points out that Mr. Hitt and his editors relied, instead, on the work of an unpaid translator who also happens to be affiliated with Ipas, an organization that Mr. Calame identifies as "an abortion rights advocacy group." Indeed they are such; however, they are also in the business of selling surgical devices used in abortion procedures. For example, the Ipas website states that one of its commercial products can be considered as "the next generation of life saving reproductive-health technology." HERE This claim is both ironic and flawed, but again I digress. The point I do wish to make is that Mr. Hitt, and, subsequently his editors relied not on the actual court proceedings but on the work of a person associated with an organization that is involved with the effort to change El Salvador’s laws and that has a financial stake in selling and distributing medical instruments used in abortion procedures.
Mr. Calame’s essay focuses on the requirement that reporting, especially of "sensitive" subjects like abortion, must be truthful. He also points out several episodes where something other than the truth about the law of and particular legal proceedings in El Salvador were presented in less than a truthful manner. The excuse offered by one editor associated with this case that the Hitt article was "as accurate as it could have been at the time it was written" is itself inaccurate as Mr. Calame demonstrates. At this point according to Mr. Calame, the New York Times does not appear inclined to do anything further to rectify the falsehoods that were portrayed as truth. He concludes his essay by stating that, "One thing is clear to me… Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect." I would add that this assertion should apply not only to Mr. Hitt’s article but any article written for and published by any journal, but especially those having a great influence on public opinion and public policy making. The laws of any jurisdiction, including El Salvador, hold people accountable to known standards of responsibility. If the New York Times concludes that it has a role in this crusade involving the law, it will need to consider that it, too, must be held accountable when it does not meet the standards for which it is responsible to uphold. RJA sj
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Harsh words against tradition and morality
Today's Washington Post carries a highly charged critique against Christians who hold and express traditional moral views especially on sexual matters HERE. The article, entitled "Episcopalians Against Equality" written by Mr. Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post staff, presents a curious view of equality in support of his position. Moreover, his assertions identify as bigots those who disagree with his views. But, his harsh words are not restricted to Episcopalians for he speaks of the Catholic Church's "inimitable backwardness" on matters that are dear to him. In short, his rhetoric should be a source of concern for those who cherish religious liberty in this country and elsewhere. RJA sj
Sunday, December 10, 2006
An Advent Reflection and a Word that Begins with “F”
In beginning this essay, I would like the readers to know that I’ll be addressing the “f” word that is so integral to this season. Some readers might be shocked by this introduction and what they have concluded about a word that begins with the letter "f." I have a suspicion that this introductory remark has triggered an arousal of curiosity. Why? Most likely because the reader’s attention would likely be fixed on the letter that appears in quotation marks. What, in God’s name could Araujo be up to by juxtaposing the holy season we now celebrate with that word. A bit more explanation is most assuredly in order.
The word some readers may have in mind connotes to many something harsh, vulgar, or profane. This reaction is largely a function of the culture in which we live. So, if the culture influences one’s thinking, it would seem that my reference is to this coarse word. But, what if I really had another word in mind—as I do in this case—and that word is: fidelity? Clearly, the reaction ought to be different. Catholics, in the exercise of their fidelity, are called to evangelize the culture; however, often the opposite is the case. Over the recent past there have been a number of MOJ postings on the issue of sexual orientation within the context of marriage. Michael P’s article that he just kindly posted examines several important dimensions of this issue in a Constitutional context. Earlier this year, attention was drawn to the Theological Studies articles by Stephen Pope, on the one hand, and by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, on the other. The latter two authors present a theory of “reconstructed complementarity” in their analysis and apparent critique of the Church’s teachings. Of course, it may well be that Professors Salzman and Lawler, in addition to Professor Pope, are faithful to the Church’s teachings about marriage. And their arguments, to the contrary, may well be intended to provoke discussion and a counter-critique to the views of those advocates and scholars who do believe that same sex unions are permissible under the law—both the Church’s and civil society’s. In short, it could well be that these three authors, in fact, remain faithful to the Church’s teachings that marriage is an exclusive union between one man and one woman but they wish to engage the arguments of those with different views on the matter. In the meantime, I wonder what advocates for same sex unions/marriages, who now principally advance their positions from arguments of equality (and equal protection of the law) and autonomy/self-determination (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) will say—if anything—to those who rely on their arguments as they contend for the right to marriage with multiple partners or something else. Are they not entitled to equality and autonomy, too?
Fidelity to the views of the Church is something to which I adhere out of an exercise of my free will. I have been critiqued before for this fidelity, and I suspect that I will be in the future—perhaps sooner than I would like. But faithful I shall strive to remain to what the Church teaches in a clear and thoughtful manner. I pray to be more like Mary, a prominent figure in the Church’s Advent celebration, who said, “I am the servant of the Lord…” Like others, we have been called to reform the culture as servants of the Lord; in contrast, we have not been asked by Him to be reformed by it. Fidelity, as Mary demonstrated, is a wonderful and extraordinary calling: fidelity to noble purposes; fidelity to the law that is just in the eyes of God; fidelity to one’s spouse and one’s family; fidelity to the Church; and, fidelity to God. I am aware that I may be critiqued by others who would argue that my position is a fundamentalist one. I am particularly conscious of the possibility of critique after recently watching some of the web archived discussions of the “Beyond Belief” symposia that took place last month. One commentator, Sam Harris, had this to say about religion and religious believers and their influence on society:
“The problem is not that religious people are stupid; it’s not that religious fundamentalists are stupid. You can be so well educated that you can build a nuclear bomb and still believe that you can get 72 virgins in paradise. The problem is that religion, because it has been sheltered from criticism in the ways that it has been, allows perfectly sane, perfectly intelligent people to believe, en masse, things that only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation. If you wake up tomorrow morning convinced that saying a few Latin words over your breakfast cereal is literally going to turn it into the body of Julius Caesar, or Elvis, you have lost your mind. [Laughter from the audience is heard] But if you believe that a cracker becomes the body of Jesus at the mass, you’re very likely to be perfectly sane; you just happen to be Catholic. But the beliefs really are equivalent, and they’re equivalently crazy. We do not respect stupidity in this country, but we systematically respect religious stupidity.”
In spite of this blistering criticism directed toward them by influential members of society who possess and exercise a powerful authority over its culture, many of the faithful labor to preserve their fidelity to God and His Church. I pray to remain in this latter group’s company and have made this a part of my ongoing Advent reflection and supplication. RJA sj
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Common Declaration of Peter and Paul
The Holy See has just recently issued the English text of the Common Declaration signed by Pope Benedict XVI and the Patriarch Bartholomew I during the Pope's recent trip to Turkey. It reads differently than the text the Pope signed with the Archbishop of Canterbury when the latter visited Rome a short while ago. In any event, the Common Declaration signed in Constantinople/Istanbul is HERE . RJA sj
Monday, December 4, 2006
A response to Eduardo
I thank, with the utmost sincerity, Eduardo for his post dated yesterday, and I am grateful again for his contributions to this forum and our exchanges within it. I would like to begin with his concluding points and then respond to some of his earlier statements.
I think there is an important role and need for a discussion venue such as Mirror of Justice. It is not my position to declare that those of us who participate in this exchange are building a (in the singular) Catholic Legal Theory on any substantive issue. Having made this point, I do think we exchange views on the issues of the day that are of concern both to the law and to the Church. On some occasions there is agreement by the contributors, but on other occasions there is not. The fact that some of us may question or challenge certain teachings of the Church and others argue in their favor would not be, in my opinion, grounds for suggesting that this project, Mirror of Justice, should be discontinued.
I for one am glad that we can talk about the issues of the day that present moral and ethical challenges to our society and its members. It is clear there are differences of opinion on the law and the moral or ethical concerns that are associated with the legal issues we address as we claim to do this from a Catholic perspective. Generally, we have had civil exchange amongst ourselves to explain our respective, sometimes conflicting views. I believe that is how a disciple, a member of the Church is to conduct himself or herself. In the Letter to the Romans, St. Paul counsels that we must not be overcome by evil; but, we must overcome evil with good. This is not an easy task, but it is the task of the person who considers himself or herself a disciple of Jesus Christ. From my perspective and, yes, my experience, this forum is a much more open one than many segments of the contemporary American academy today, including some of those that use the modifier Catholic, where some contributions to discourse are discouraged or not permitted. Typically, the views that are not welcome are those that remain faithful to the Magisterium. If a person believes that another is wrong, the mechanism of civil exchange exists to explore the soundness of the views expressed by the participants to the discussion. But, there is a problem when some folks avoid any exchange, and they substitute it with ad hominem critique that objectifies the person who holds a contrary view. While such conduct exists, it should not in the Catholic forum. I think that the Mirror of Justice has enabled people with different perspectives on specific issues to participate without exclusion. Now, I would like to address a few of Eduardo’s other points on particular substantive issues.
A good number of us have recently talked about topics dealing with sexual orientation and homosexuality. I think I understand what the Church teaches and accept its teachings as correct. There are those who disagree with me, and, I guess, with the Magisterium. But I must mention that my agreement is based on a careful study of the Church’s texts and supporting medical evidence (including that from the Catholic Medical Association). I hasten to add that I have also studied the arguments and supporting information that is relied upon by those with opposing or different views. But, I find their supporting data lacking. A web log is not conducive to an elaborate, multi-page examination of the merits and shortcomings of such technical information, but I want contributors and readers to know that I have conducted a careful study of opposing arguments and the information that is relied upon for their support.
Many of the major legal issues of the day that get exposure in Mirror of Justice are discussed in other forums by those who are considered to be the “experts.” But are they really experts? Is it possible that they are, in fact, partisans in the increasing culture disputes often fueled by relativism and fragmentation of learning? It strikes me that in many instances “experts” have substituted rigorously developed objective data with political ideology. When they confront opposing views based on objective data, they shut out the data and the opinions based on the objective data as “intolerant,” “traditional,” or, dare I say, “Catholic.” When we get into certain issues that bring up matters about biotechnology, human life, or human sexuality, I find that some advocates whose views differ from mine have substituted political ideology for science even though they claim to rely on the latter. If one thinks about human anatomy, for example, and considers the difference between the male and the female and what these differences mean beyond what the individual person would like them to mean, the reasonableness and truthfulness of the views held and presented by the Magisterium become all the more apparent. But, I recognize that there are some folks who choose to take a different path, but, in doing so, they deny the authority of something beyond themselves because they are the only authority, or so it seems. Perhaps the hierarchy have not had to cite studies in support of some of their claims because the challengers have raised little or nothing that requires rebuttal with such studies.
Eduardo did not raise this topic in his post of yesterday; however, a number of us have recently discussed the New York Times article of December 1 entitled “Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn’t Clear.” I decided to examine more carefully some of the “progressive” schools discussed in this article that encourage their students “to be in touch with their inner selves.” I was fascinated by the depiction of “Traditional vs. Progressive/Constructivist Classrooms” that the Aurora School has on its web page. The Aurora School identifies itself as “progressive/constructivist.” In a nutshell, however, their depiction is flawed because it is based on false assumptions about “traditional” education. But these false assumptions are nevertheless permitted by intelligent people to support the “truths” of their extraordinary but flawed claims.
I’ll conclude by coming back to my first point which was Eduardo’s last. I consider myself fortunate that the Mirror of Justice forum exists, for a number of reasons. First of all, it enables me to present my ideas that deal with the law and the correlative Catholic intellectual tradition. It is often hard to come by such a forum including the contemporary academy. Second, this forum provides me with the insight of others—both MOJ contributors and readers—which I value because these other perspectives enable me to test the soundness of the positions that I take and hold. Third, it serves as one part of the vineyard where I and other disciples try to overcome some of the evil in the world with a bit of good. And, fourth, by offering this response, it reminds me that I might have to consider additional views to the things I have said here and respond to them in what I hope is a civil and amicable exchange. RJA sj
Sunday, December 3, 2006
A bit more on preferences...
To follow up on the postings of Michael P. and Patrick, I wonder what the Park School would do if a student showed up wearing leather shoes? Or, sandals? Or, clear plastic flip-flops with no color? Or, like the child appearing in the picture in the NYTimes article linked to Michael's post, is bare foot? RJA sj
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
