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.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

A bit more on "The Bishops and Human Sexuality"

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I would like to thank Michael P. for drawing attention to the November 24th lead editorial from the National Catholic Reporter. It appears that the authors of the editorial disagree with the bishops on several major issues, and they, the editorial authors, need more clarity.

However, the editorial also raises its own important questions that call for more clarity on the part of its authors.

For example, the editorial’s suggestion that various bishops’ statements “tend[] to reduce all of human love to the act of breeding.” I am not so sure that this is an accurate characterization of what the bishops have stated. The bishops, and others, have discussed many aspects of human love that do not imply acts of breeding. Moreover, like many other people, I love to read books; I love to listen to Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven; I love my family. But these acts of human love are not acts of breeding. Perhaps the editors could have been more precise, more clear, in the point they were trying to make.

But there are other elements of this editorial that also require more precision and greater clarity, and these get to the heart of what is likely the motivation for the editorial. When all is said and done, the authors of this editorial disagree with the teachings of the Church as taught by the bishops. Several times within their editorial, the authors refer to “science” and “human experience.” I, for one, would like to know what is the “science” upon which they rely to substantiate their disagreement with the bishops. Their assertion about and reliance on “science” stands in need of clarification.

But in the meantime, I will offer a thought on the allegation about “human experience.” “Human experience” and powerful political lobbying may lead to the decriminalization of certain actions in specified contexts. For example, abortion and adultery and other extra-marital sexual activity were once crimes; but now, in some instances at least, they are not. That does not mean that they are no longer sins. That is a matter for God, not “science” and not “human experience”, to decide. I think the editors who wrote this editorial could have been more clear on this point. Finally, I should comment on the editorial’s remark about the lives of the “faithful.” Each of us who considers one’s self as a member of the faithful is a sinner. But, as sinners, we have the ongoing ability to seek God’s forgiveness and to amend our lives and to sin no more, as the Church teaches us. This, too, is human experience, but it seems to be the type of human experience that does not merit comment in this editorial.   RJA sj

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Oral arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart—a Catholic Legal Theory (based on reality) Perspective

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I just had the opportunity to listen to the oral arguments held at the Supreme Court a few weeks ago on the new partial-birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart. It was ear and eye opening to listen to how highly intelligent people relied on euphemism (e.g., “fetal demise”) to escape coping with the reality of what is at the core of the case and, therefore, at the heart of abortion itself—human life. I hasten to add that some of the participants would periodically indicate or otherwise suggest that two human lives are involved in every abortion case that is litigated; however, others could not or would not make this concession.

Very early on in the oral argument the listener hears a discussion about dismemberment, but what is being dismembered is not mentioned. The object/subject of this procedure is left to the imagination of the listener to identify. But, with patient listening, the identity of the object/subject becomes clear; however, with the increase in this clarity, the efforts by some to fortify the conclusion that it is not human, or at least outside the scope of Constitutional protection, intensify. Some of the presentations are concrete when they focus on “the health of the woman (mother?)”; however, they become more abstract when the “other entity” is mentioned.

I was particularly struck by Justice Steven’s remark about whether the “other entity” is identified as a child or as a fetus might depend on whether it is more than half-in or half-out of the woman just prior to the moment of “cranial evacuation.” It was also sobering to hear Justice Ginsburg note that any “medical procedures” take place inside of the woman’s (mother’s) womb are permissible since they cannot be considered infanticide. These particular discussions introduced two other phrases that captured my attention: the “spatial line” and the “anatomical landmark”. In other words, the geographic location (something which I have previously addressed in earlier discussions about abortion and the law) may have a bearing on the legality or illegality of the abortion procedure and the “rights” under review by a court. However, I find that this preoccupation with geography dismisses the reality that this and all abortion cases ultimately deal with the lives of two human beings rather than one. The problems that geography poses for Constitutional law has been previously demonstrated in cases like Dred Scott v. Sanford. Moreover, I find that the legal fictions built upon these troublesome euphemisms mask the awkward reality that one human being, in the minds of some lawyers, can be sacrificed so that the other human being, the woman, may have a better chance at survival in some hypothetical situation. This point becomes all the more poignant when one realizes that what challenges the survival of the second may itself be a fiction—but a fiction which nonetheless permits the sacrifice of the first human being in any case.

It was also sobering to hear the lawyer from the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, state that some abortion procedures can lead to “consequences [that] are devastating.” Devastating for whom, I might ask? Any abortion procedure—be it completed inside the womb or outside the womb—is always devastating for the baby. In this regard, I found Justice Stevens’ characterization of the partial-birth (D&X method) abortion dealing with an entity “inches away from becoming a person” perplexing. Again, the legal fiction that defies fact still carries the day for some. I found Solicitor General Clement’s different formulation—“inches away from being born”—more accurate. For some of those involved with the oral argument, there also seemed to be confusion about whether the entity that could be sacrificed is in fact “living.” This confusion became evident in the discussion about “fetal viability.” A brief consult with any basic medical textbook on human embryology will clarify the matter: the fetus is a human life—it is not some tissue or anything else. It is and remains human life, the very human life that we all represent. How the Court will decide this case remains to be seen. But the conclusion reached by Dickens’ Mr. Bumble about the law on certain matters suggests something more clear and tangible about the law when it relies not on fact but on a fiction that defies objective fact. And, from my perspective, this is something that the law cannot afford to be when human life is at stake.   RJA sj

Friday, November 24, 2006

Tea at the Apostolic Palace: the British are coming; the British are coming!

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Yesterday, when many MOJ contributors and readers were occupied with preparing for the Thanksgiving Day feast, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI met at the Apostolic Prayer (whether crumpets or cornetti were served was not disclosed). Both the Pope and the Archbishop presented their respective addresses [HERE]. Afterwards they issued a Common Declaration [HERE].

The three texts all discuss matters such as dialogue, friendship, and ecumenism. However, I found the Pope’s published address to be a revealing text. Twice he mentioned the search and work for “full visible unity” between the Anglican Communion and Rome. This is an important statement free from general platitude and the ambiguities that often accompany diplomatic exchanges. The Pope acknowledged that obstacles continue to “keep us apart.” And what might those obstacles be? The Pope was not reticent in providing insight.

After noting the existence and effect of negative influences and pressures that the “secularized Western world” have on Christians as individuals and as communities, the Pope identified two major problems that fortify the separation without saying they are the only ones. The two specified are: (1) the ordained ministry; and (2) certain moral teachings. It could well be that within this second concern lies another line of questions pertaining to what are the beliefs held by the Anglican Communion? The fault lines of the present day found within the Anglican Communion indicate the plausibility of these questions. The Pope lamented that these vital topics he mentioned not only affect the relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church, but they also make uncertain the future of the Anglican Communion itself. For the Pope, these two issues are of vital importance to the continuing discussions between the Apostolic Palace and the Lambeth Palace. In this context, the Pope concluded on a prayerful and hopeful note that the Anglican Community will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition of the common patrimony essential to the “full visible unity” of which the Pope spoke.

If this were Wimbleton, the Holy Father was successful in keeping the ball in the other’s court. But keeping score really was not Benedict’s purpose. His objective was to send his welcome guest back home with a list of important questions that must be addressed by the Anglican Communion so that when the guest returns he will not only find an open door but also an expectation of presenting answers to the previously posed questions—answers that are essential to determining whether “full visible unity” is possible.   RJA sj

Monday, November 20, 2006

Political and Constitutional Disagreements in Massachusetts

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Yesterday, there was a rally at the State House in Boston involving the failure of the General Court (the Massachusetts legislature) to vote on the question of a Constitutional Convention that could have a substantive effect on the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in the Goodrich case. The news report of the Boston Globe is HERE . I find Professor Friedman's argument, referred to in the article, that the Governor is wrong quite interesting. But then, the Professor did file an amicus brief in the Goodrich case that appears to agree with the court's majority ruling in favor of homosexual marriage. At this stage, it also appears that the legal and political issues addressed in the Globe article could generate future discussion and interest among MOJ contributors and readers.   RJA sj

Sunday, November 19, 2006

A Roman and Catholic Conference on Higher Education—what is to be taught; what is to be studied; what is to be learned; what is to be done?

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

On Friday and Saturday of this past week the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace hosted a conference in Rome entitled “The University and the Social Doctrine of the Church—working together towards an authentic and integral humanism.” The participants who attended come from a wide range of academic fields and work around the globe. 

As I was on my way to Saturday’s session, I took along a copy of a news story about the hopes of some Americans to slowly but surely “get back on track” with certain human rights claims that the new Congress must tackle when it convenes in January. I was struck with the realization that most of the claims discussed in the report were for the advancement of the autonomous self rather than the promotion of the interests of every person who bears the image of God. The article failed to acknowledge that the human person is also a member of many communities (family, city, state, nation, and the world) where the relationship between rights and responsibilities—a core element of Catholic social doctrine—was conspicuous by its absence in this report I read.

Two of the claimed “rights” discussed in the report involved some perennial favorites: abortion and medical research (the code name for embryonic stem cell research) to mention but a few. While some human rights advocates stress the need for fortification of these “rights” and programs and strengthening the legal regimes that protect them, I realized all the more how these claims reinforce the demands of the autonomous individual at the expense of the human family and the common good as it is understood within the social teachings of the Church. Ultimately the claims asserted by those interviewed for the article I was reading undermine the dignity of the human person and, therefore, cannot be advanced as authentic human rights. Nonetheless, there are those who are intent on “getting back on track.”

And what is the response of the Catholic university and its intellectual community to all this? The answer is for us committed to Catholic higher education to formulate, but I hasten to add that it would or should be an alternative to the positions of the “human rights advocates” mentioned in the news report I read on the subway ride to conference. Theirs is a world guided by subjectivism rather than by the transcendent moral order taught to us by the one who came to save us. But there is a temptation—sometimes a strong one—to reflect the ego-centric culture that surrounds one’s self. I recall a year ago reading another news report about a demonstration that was taking place at an institution that uses the moniker “Jesuit.” The news reporter covering the event asked one of the students involved with the protest why he would be supporting a cause that conflicted with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The student avoided the question by replying that Jesuits are all about advocacy, and he, the student, was advocating for a cause in which he passionately believed.

All about advocacy! Advocacy for what? As a Jesuit with more than a remote interest in the work of the academy that claims to be Catholic and Jesuit, it strikes me that some odd contentions have been asserted in the past—distant and recent—where “rights” claims have been asserted at the expense of someone else’s human dignity. If indeed the Catholic university is a place to cultivate advocacy, the advocacy proclaimed should be in accord with the social doctrine of the Church and not that of a secular and, sometimes, relativistic culture that may claim to defend “human rights” but, in fact, does otherwise. It is this doctrine of the Church that, in a rigorously intellectual and scientific way, can be studied, taught, and learned so that one day, perhaps even in our lifetimes, it may be more of the rule and less of the exception.    RJA sj

Thursday, November 16, 2006

More on Catholic Identity

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I would like to thank Rob for posting the link to the Boston Globe article on Catholic identity. While the linked article focuses on Boston College, the issues that it addresses apply to many other educational institutions, some mentioned in the linked report, that rely on the modifier “Catholic.” One would think that an institution which relies on this characteristic and distinctiveness would be able to attract students, faculty, administrators, and staff to replenish and fortify the soul of its self-characterization. But other forces compete with the Catholic institution’s identity. One of them is the compelling drive to “be like” some other institution that seems to have more fame, more success, or, simply, more money. As with other envies, this is not necessarily a good objective to pursue. In the present age, many others have lamented on the problems which face higher education and, for that matter, all education today. One of the problems is the fragmentation of education and the drive for specialized studies that make no effort to connect what is studied with the search for wisdom and, quite possibly, even the pursuit of truth. In this regard, the existence of truth is denied by many, and this is manifested in the relativism that faces the world of higher education of the present generation. Still another problem that often must be met is the environment of secularization in which higher education often finds itself. The destiny of each member of the human race becomes immaterial to the labor of student and scholar because there is no final objective of the human person, there is no concern about the afterlife because it has been declared by some that there is none. God has died or, at least, become irrelevant.

I have been reading Christopher Dawson’s book The Crisis of Western Education. Last evening I came across his reference to the nineteenth century efforts of Joseph Chamberlain whose liberal inclination enabled him, Chamberlain, to declare that the objective of his educational cause “in England, throughout the continent of Europe and in America has been to wrest the education of the young out of the hands of the priests, to whatever denomination they might belong.” It would seem that Boston College and other institutions that still rely on the moniker “Catholic” have come to realize that there is something to Chamberlain’s goal that poses not only a problem but a threat to the vitality of a school’s identification and soul. If the efforts of Chamberlain’s disciples have succeeded at Boston College and other institutions, will the endeavors of Catholic renewal mentioned in the Globe article be successful in their campaign?

As one priest who has been confronted by the followers of Chamberlain but who is still involved in the education of the young, and not-so-young, I watch from afar with great interest in this enterprise of renewal. The measure of its success will depend  not only on human effort but on hope and trust in God as well.   RJA sj

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Is it a job, or is it discipleship?

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

A number of MOJ postings over the last few days regarding education and Catholic identity; politics and Catholics in public life; and the core of personal identity have helped me adjust my thinking cap. What brings this post to fruition was an experience I had in class today in my course entitled “Christian Ethics and the International Order.” Of late, my students have been examining Pacem in Terris and Paul VI’s October, 1965 address to the General Assembly of the United Nations in the context of the objectives of that organization as viewed through the lens of Catholicism. The reference to the Cuban missile crisis made by John XXIII in Pacem in Terris intrigued the students. I realized that none of them were alive when the showdown between the US and the USSR occurred and this became quite evident as the discussion continued. I not only had to deal with the difficulties of expressing myself in a foreign language, but I also had to address an experience through which I had lived to a group of young, well-educated people who had little or no experience of the Cold War. I realized that part of my task was to pass on to them the difficulties of the time and how John XXIII and Paul VI chose to tackle them.

I also realized that this is the task of any educator who wishes to remain true to the vocation of education: to pass on wisdom amassed through human history to a succeeding generation whose members would one day have the responsibility of doing the same to their succeeding generation. In the context of Catholic and Christian education, this task grows in that the amassed wisdom includes that of a particular community of faith, the Church. Cardinal Dulles explained this exceedingly well in a presentation he gave at Boston College during the past academic year [HERE]. I realized today that I was not only trying to teach something about Christian ethics and its application to the international law and the international order, I was also participating in passing on something about the faith to a diverse group of young Catholics who one day will do the same across the world.

But I realized that my task was not restricted to this responsibility alone. I was also helping to form future members of a wide and diversified group of political communities. All of these young people are Catholics, but they come from different countries. At least five of my students in this particular course are Americans. But I began to comprehend that I was preparing them and others to be not only disciples of Christ but Catholic citizens who would one day return to the US, Russia, Colombia, Mexico, Vietnam, France, Thailand, Spain, Brazil, Madagascar, Croatia, and Korea and presumably participate in the public life of their respective countries. I became more conscious of what I am passing on to them as I realized that I was not only helping to form Christian consciences but Christian consciences that would exercise a multitude of roles in some democratic and some not-so-democratic societies. Then, I came to the third part of my realization: how do they see themselves. Are they Catholics; are they citizens of particular countries; are they something else? From my perspective, I see them as the very People of God who, according to the Church and its magisterium, have a vocation to be the leaven in the world. Theirs will be the responsibility of making the Peace of Christ, the Kingdom of God more of the rule rather than the exception—for they are and will always be simultaneously citizens of two cities.

And then, I encountered my fourth insight of the day: one does not have to be teaching in Rome to acknowledge these responsibilities. One could just as easily labor most of the time in South Bend, Minneapolis, Ann Arbor, New York and environs, suburban Philadelphia, Valparaiso, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Norman, or Atlanta and also share in this vocation. And, the more we acknowledge and implement these obligations of our profession and our faith, the more shall His will rather than mine or yours be done. RJA sj

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Dialogue, Public Life, and Compromise

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

In this post-election season, I have reflected on some of the previous posts as well as various goings on in the political world of public life in the United States. I am sincerely grateful for the various exchanges, sometimes passionate, about Catholics and their participation in public life that have recently appeared in MOJ. I recognize the importance of discussion and debate. These are crucial to public life.

However, there are times—especially in political life—where the debate and discussion lead to the need to make decisions about public life. Often times this means that there will likely be a compromise. I am not adverse to compromise—on some issues. For example, I might be able to compromise on the minimum wage. If it were ever to be introduced in public debate, I might be able to make a compromise on whether a particular sum of money is a “family wage.” I could probably enter compromises on tax matters that involve national debt. But there are some issues in our public life on which compromise eviscerates the very thing being discussed. I find this true in “debates” on some of the most pressing issues of our time when they deal with human life. When the right to life becomes subject to compromise, political and otherwise, then anything else we may hold dear is in peril.  RJA sj

Sunday, November 5, 2006

Juxtapositions

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

This past week I had to opportunity to participate in two interesting events. The first was to be a member of the Holy See’s delegation to the Council of Europe. The topic for discussion on this occasion was religious liberty (and its contribution to moral values) in a multicultural society. While the issue was straightforward, the discussions in Strasbourg seemed disjointed. It was maintained by many speakers that there is a European culture and civilization. Those statements were fine. But then it became apparent that there was either no authentic understanding of the heart of this culture or a denial of it. Of course, the heart of the European culture is Christianity. Yet, this vital center is undergoing an effortless abnegation because many Europeans see their common heritage of Christianity as only one of the many voices of identity that must be treated “equally” with all others. In the meantime, the speakers from Turkey had very different things to say, and I do not believe that their message was being registered by the Western Europeans.

The other event was a visit of Pope Benedict to the Pontifical Gregorian University where I spend most of my time these days. The Pope’s insightful words delivered during his visit made up for the disappointments I experienced in Strasbourg. From my perspective, Benedict’s words of this Friday past contain a lot to reflect upon not just for Europe and its academic institutions but for the United States and its institutions of higher education, especially those that use the moniker “Catholic.” Indeed, the Pope’s address may well have something to offer to Catholic Legal Theory insofar as it has a bearing on higher education and religious liberty.

One of the striking points made by the Pope was his relating intelligence to faith, hope, and charity. He did this by presenting two standards: the secular-relativist culture so profoundly in existence in the West today and the religious culture founded on Christ and His Church. In his view, the former ultimately forces upon society and the civilization it claims with a confused sense of conscience and human destiny. The latter points the way to a truth, the Truth, about conscience and destiny that the former tends to deny.

Of course, those who labor to develop moral standards and values (and this was the purpose of the meeting at the Council of Europe) must consider who they are; thus, examining from where they came and to where they are going might be a good place to start. I trust that my inadequate translation of the Pope’s address delivered in Italian still offers some insight into what he said: “The hope of Christ is that the human person does not enclose himself in a paralyzing and sterile nihilism, but is open to engaging society in a generous fashion with the view of contributing to and improving it. It is the task that God has given man in creating him in His image and likeness—a task that everyone endowed with human dignity has, but to which God has attached immense responsibility.” In short, the Pope spoke of firmness of conviction and the unwavering response to the call to discipleship from the one who came to save us all—in spite of the threats, the pressures, the cajoling, or whatever else directs otherwise.

I also realize that many, but not all, of Pope Benedict’s remarks were directed to the members of my religious order, the Society of Jesus, and to the institutions with which it is affiliated. However, it was also clear that the Holy Father was addressing a much wider audience as well. This became evident when he said: “The [Catholic] academic institution is engaged to be in the Church and to be with the Church. For that is what love, the love of Christ, is about.” The Pope said many other things, but here I shall stop only to add some further insight garnered from my reading of some of the homilies of August Cardinal von Galen that treat similar issues about pressure on the Church, the culture that it founded and sustains, and its members. Von Galen served the Church in a place and time in which it experienced the pressure of a ferocious totalitarian regime—a regime which hammered the Church, its members, and their beliefs. But von Galen would not capitulate to the threats to the religious liberty of the Church and the denial of Christian culture. In one of his sermons delivered in 1941, he had this to say to the faithful:

Steel yourselves and hold fast! At this moment we are not the hammer, but the anvil. Others, chiefly intruders and apostates, hammer at us; they are striving violently to wrench us, our nation, and our youth from our belief in God. But, we are the anvil, I say, and not the hammer, but what happens in the forge? Go and ask the blacksmith and see what he has to say. Whatever is beaten out on the anvil receives its shape from the anvil as well as the hammer. The anvil cannot and need not strike back. It need only be hard and firm. If it is tough enough, it inevitably outlives the hammer. No matter how vehemently the hammer falls, the anvil remains standing in quiet strength and, for a long time, will play its part in helping to shape what is being molded.

Today the Church, its liberty, and its members are being hammered at by a variety of human forces. Some are from outside, but others closer to home but who have become fugitives from the traditions in which they were reared. While the future of the Church and its intellectual tradition may appear gloomy to some, the counsel of Benedict and the exhortation of von Galen come at an appropriate time to remind the faithful who they are, where they are going, what they face, and what they must exhibit—fidelity—in order to prevail against the hammers of our day.   RJA sj

Friday, November 3, 2006

More on elections and voting

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Last week I received my absentee ballot for the mid-term elections. As I perused the ballot, which contained elections for about thirty offices, I noticed something that I did not expect. Only three of the races had candidates from the two major parties. The overwhelming percentage of offices only had candidates from one of the major parties, the Democratic Party to be specific. I came to realize that our discussion of a few weeks back on Catholics, voting, and voting guides did not address very much, if at all, this circumstance that I have just encountered. How does any voter, including the Catholic voter, deal with an election in which there is no opposition. I suppose this is what happens in totalitarian regimes where voters have no choice. But, the United States is a democracy, is it not? I then began to wonder if the time has come to consider the possibility of reevaluating the current “two party” system. In particular, I have started to think about the likelihood of members of the laity forming an American version of the Christian Democratic Party. Would there be Constitutional prohibitions against such an institution or not? I am curious what other MOJ participants and readers might think about such a proposal. In the meantime, I continue to reflect on the meaning of my voice in American politics that was dramatically affected by the ballot I received.   RJA sj

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive