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.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Dancing with Chaperones

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I begin by thanking Rob for his posting on Faculty Chaperones and Catholic Identity and by taking him up on his invitation for reactions, insights, and recommendations dealing with the present situation at the University of Saint Thomas and the objection by some faculty to the school’s position on faculty chaperones.

I will respond to his open invitation if not with insights or a recommendation, then with a reaction. Mine begins with the beginning of today’s first psalm from the Divine Office’s Morning Prayer:

Defend me, O God, and plead my cause against a Godless nation.

From deceitful and cunning men rescue me, O God.

I appreciate and support Rob’s position on why he could not co-sign the letter issued by some faculty criticizing the University in its stand against non-married faculty bringing heterosexual or homosexual domestic partners on University-sponsored trips where faculty serve as chaperones or excursion leaders. I have also read with great interest the March 3 letter signed by some faculty against the University and its Administration. I lament their position and the manner in which they expressed their views.

My reaction really is a series of questions for faculty members who signed this letter and hold the view that the University has been “unfair” to them and the several faculty members affected by the University’s decision.

My questions begin with an assumption that when these faculty were hired they were neither asked by the University nor did the University inquire through other means about their domestic relationships if they, in fact, existed at the time of hiring. My assumption goes further in that I suspect these faculty members did not volunteer information about their private lives and relationships when they were hired. But now these private matters have become of legitimate public concern to the University when the faculty members made their private affairs a public business.

With this prelude, I share Rob’s concerns about the rhetorical style which the faculty letter employs. It is harsh. It is disrespectful of the University. It is not conducive to civility and civil discourse. I suppose tenure for some of its holders provides a sense of having the right to say anything in any tone one wishes to employ without fear of consequences. In this line, I wonder how many untenured faculty who agree with the University and its position would consider themselves as free to respond with written disagreement against tenured colleagues who have signed the letter? But I digress.

My questions continue: who really is being unfair in this matter? Who initially chose to remain silent on these matters of vital interest to a University that represents itself to the world as a Catholic institution? Has the University in fact condemned those with whom it disagrees or has it simply stated its disagreement and asserted that it will not support the relationships of the affected faculty members? Has the University in reality denied its openness and commitment to diversity conducive to an institution that claims to be Catholic? Has the University really been deceitful in this matter? Did the University conceal some previous institutional policy that there was nothing wrong with heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships becoming a part of the University’s identity? Has not the University tried to be true to its Catholic identity—a challenge to institutional integrity in this present age? Has the University exhibited hypocrisy?

Might it just be that the University in honoring its heritage, mission, and institutional integrity chosen the correct path in this matter? This last question takes into account the important address Archbishop Michael Miller, Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, delivered at Notre Dame this past fall in which he talked about the current challenges to Catholic identity of colleges and universities. As the Archbishop stated, the time may have come to exercise “evangelical pruning” toward those institutions which no longer adhere to Catholic identity. Is it possible that the University of Saint Thomas has chosen to remain true to its identity rather than to become a candidate for evangelical pruning—not out of fear but out of the exercise of its academic freedom to be true in a very public fashion to the identity it claims?

It is relevant to note that not once in their letter do the faculty who issued this condemnation mention the Catholic nature of the institution. Not once. This omission says much, however.

I shall conclude my reaction to Rob’s posting with another stanza from today’s Divine Office:

O send forth you light and your truth; let these be my guide.

Let them bring me to your holy mountain to the place where you dwell.

It may just be that someone at Saint Thomas is also mindful of the Divine Office and what its words mean. It also appears that there are those at the same University who are unfamiliar with its wisdom.    RJA sj


Sunday, March 12, 2006

A soul is a terrible thing to waste

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Many years ago there appeared on television a public service announcement stressing the importance of education. This public service advertisement was for the United Negro College Fund and it concluded with the exhortation: “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”® I would like to suggest that a soul is also a terrible thing to waste if I can borrow from the registered trademark phrase of the UNCF.

I was planning on writing a different posting last night, but then I read Mark’s most recent posting on the March 10th statement issued by Cardinals McCarrick and Keeler and Bishop DiMarzio on the Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life. I also reread some earlier contributions to MOJ on related issues involving conscience, the writings of theologians who disagree with Church teachings, and the works of some of the very theologians who would support the views taken by the fifty-five members of Congress who issued the February 28th Statement of Principles on which I and others have previously commented.

Then I read an essay by Elizabeth Weil that appears in today’s New York Times Magazine entitled “A Wrongful Birth?” The question mark at the end of the title speaks volumes. Ms. Weil talks about a difficult case of a New York couple who had a child, A.J. is his name, whose life is affected by several serious genetic disorders. HERE But I came to realize that little A.J. is not the only person whose composition is flawed. We are all flawed in some ways—be it physical, intellectual, or spiritual. A.J. has a soul. So do his parents. And, so do we.

Regardless of who we are, from little A.J. to some person who has planned and executed terrible infractions of civilized conduct to all of us somewhere in between, we have an immortal soul whose objective is salvation and union with God. For those who are officials in public life, for those who elect or appoint these officials, and for those who fit into none of these categories, all need to be reminded of this universal truth about human nature—a truth that we who call ourselves Catholic hold.

With this reality in our consciousness, there is greater promise that no soul will go to waste by some other person’s deed. The three bishops who issued the March 10th statement seem to have this point in mind as they exercise their teaching authority. We, who are teachers in another context but who are also disciples, share in the responsibility to remind others as well as ourselves that no soul should go to waste. Jesus came not to save some but all.   RJA sj

Monday, March 6, 2006

What's in a name?

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

What’s in a name?

Over the past several weeks several MOJ contributors have spoken of Catholics in the context of “liberal Catholics.” Yesterday’s Boston Globe had a brief article by Globe columnist Joan Vennochi entitled “Should Liberal Catholics Leave Catholic Church?” HERE These are interesting views, and they have served as a catalyst for thinking about what other Catholics might exist? Of course, an immediate and obvious response is this: “conservative Catholics.” But then, if these modifiers are used, do they fully identify and describe all the categories of Catholics who might exist? Could there be “Maoist Catholics”, “libertarian Catholics”, “fundamentalist Catholics”, “orthodox Catholics”, “reformed Catholics”, “socialist Catholics”, “communitarian Catholics”, etc.? Then I had another question: what do these modifiers really mean, if anything, in the context of whether a person is a Catholic or not.

Ms. Vennochi’s categorization appears to rely on a simple dichotomy, although at one point she suggests that there might be “Neanderthal Catholics” since she asserts “our views [presumably meaning ‘liberal’ as she uses the term] are the enlightened ones” whereas “Rome’s represent the neanderthal.” But this columnist does not explain what the source of her “enlightenment” is that she possesses. While she appears to admit love for the ritual of the Mass, she is skeptical to endorse teachings on issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption, and married and women priests. She is silent on other Church teachings such as genocide and war, just to mention a few. She mentions nothing about sin, therefore it is not clear whether “liberals”, as she has identified them, believe that sin exists. She does express the opinion that the Church’s hierarchy is “out of touch with ordinary Catholics.” When I am back in the US serving the local church in a variety of states including Massachusetts from where she writes, I do not have this impression since I meet a lot of Catholics (who simply call themselves “ordinary Catholics”) who agree with the Church’s teachings and would not endorse the views of Ms. Vennochi.

Many of these other “ordinary Catholics” exercise, in spite of temptations to sin, extraordinary Christian virtues. One of them is charity. It is difficult to find Ms. Vennochi’s charity, but it might be present somewhere, if not in her article, then perhaps in her heart.

She is correct on one thing when she concludes her column by stating that Rome (presumably meaning Church authorities) does not think “in news cycles”.   RJA sj

Thursday, March 2, 2006

More on the Statement of Principles

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

The Fifty-five members of the House of Representatives in the February 28, 2006 Statement of Principles begin on a high note asserting their pride in “living the Catholic tradition” in order to promote the common good and to “work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being.” They also endorse the basic principles that “are at the heart of Catholic social teaching” and assert their commitment to make them “real.”

But then, one might ask how do they understand the teachings of the Church on all important issues of the day that come before them as legislators and as Catholics who are disciples in this world? While there is some reference to other issues, the one substantive issue that they address is abortion. How well do they understand what the Church teaches on this issue is crucial to assessing this Statement of Principles? How well they understand the “people of God” to whom they refer and the exercise of conscience on which they rely and John Paul II’s Christifideles Laici which they use for support require careful study.

Thirteen women and forty-two men signed the Statement of Principles. How does one of the principal advocates for abortion rights, NARAL Pro-Choice, rate these members of Congress? All of the women received a 100% (the best) rating from NARAL Pro-Choice. Fifty-seven percent of the men also received the “best” rating. However, five of the men received the “worst” rating or 0%. The range for the remainder of the men varied between the two ends of the scale.

Now, let us move on to more substantive matters and the questions I posed. No reference is made to John Paul II’s exhortation to public policy makers concerning the question of abortion. In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae he addresses the role of the legislator. In doing so he reminds them in N. 73, “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent… [W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” In N. 38 of Christifideles Laici (to which the Members of Congress refer) the Pope states: “The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor…If, indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given a particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, healthworkers and the many who hold economic and political power.”

These Members of Congress also fail to address the significance of Lumen Gentium when talking about their membership in the “people of God.” It is vital for us all to understand the proper role of each person and the incumbent duties one holds in the Church. We all need to understand clearly who holds the authority to teach and instruct. In Lumen Gentium, NN. 20, 21, 24, 25, the Council explained the duties of bishops as teachers of doctrine, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, endowed with the authority of Christ and rulers who ward off errors that threaten their flocks. As the Second Vatican Council further stated: “The distinction which the Lord has made between the sacred ministers and the rest of the People of God involves union, for the pastors and the other faithful are joined together by a close relationship: the pastors of the Church—following the example of the Lord—should minister to each other and to the rest of the faithful; the latter should eagerly collaborate with the pastors and teachers.” These Members of Congress and the rest of us must be reminded that there are those who have the authority to teach (and not only on one issue). Reiterating instruction on the pressing moral and social issues of the day is the proper role of a teacher, and exercising this responsibility is not mounting scorn on those who are the pupils of this teaching. It is the exercise of a solemn obligation and fundamental moral duty of the bishops to inform the consciences of those entrusted to their pastoral and teaching duties (Lumen Gentium, NN. 21, 27). The claim which these Members of Congress assert is based on this relationship with the Church’s teachers; it is not separate from it.

A word about the exercise of conscience is due here. As John Paul II once said, “the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” Evangelium Vitae, N. 70. The properly formed conscience is geared to the moral objective order that protects the inherent dignity of all. Notwithstanding the claims made by these Members of Congress, one must ask and address the question about the role of the Catholic legislator regarding the matter of abortion and how the Catholic legislator has been asked to tackle it—in the exercise of good conscience well formed and reflecting the objective moral order. It would seem that the voting records of many of these legislators who signed the Statement of Principles do not reflect the proper exercise of conscience as the Church teaches about it. If this is the case, the principal teachers, i.e., bishops and pastors, have a lot to do to ensure that the members of their flock who sit in the Congress are well informed about their duties and the exercise of conscience so that their words and deeds will be in accord with Catholic teachings—teachings on which these legislators claim they rely. In the meantime, the rest of us also have our own duties as disciples, and one of them is to pray for our sisters and brothers who are elected to Congress and the teachers whom God has appointed to guide them.   RJA sj

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Statement of Principles-- House Democrats

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Fifty-five Democratic members of the US House of Representatives who identify themselves as Catholic have just issued a Statement of Principles. The statement is relatively brief and is HERE . A quick perusal indicates that similar points in more elaborate form were made in the letter sent to Cardinal McCarrick almost two years ago. I plan to study this new statement in greater detail, but you will see that the one issue upon which they concentrate is abortion, which they "do not celebrate." They state that they seek the Church's guidance, but they also assert "the primacy of conscience." They do not indicate if they will take the route which Pope John Paul II drew in Evangelium Vitae and reiterated by the CDF in its own text. From what I see, that direction of these texts does not seem to be the position that they endorse. They conclude by stating that as the "people of God" they "have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours." Please forgive my brief commentary at this point, but I thought MOJ contributors and readers would like to see the statement as quickly as possible.   RJA sj

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Conscience, Human Dignity, and Livelihood

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

As a past participant to some of the MOJ discussion on conscience and related issues, I would like to offer a few thoughts in response to some of the recent postings. It is clear that a wide variety of individuals today, both in the US and abroad, are facing challenges to their consciences. In this context, I often think of our fellow Catholics in the People’s Republic of China. Some of the recent MOJ debate has concentrated on physicians and pharmacists. In some of this dialogue, a distinction was drawn between members of these two professions. It seems that one view makes a distinction between these two groups in that the sanctions they face can lead to a threat of livelihood for physicians but not for pharmacists. Is that really the case?

Let me suggest that any person has a right to claim the exercise of conscience and that those opposed to this exercise of conscience may take actions that threaten that person’s livelihood and possibly even that individual’s life. Let us take the case of the auto mechanic who is employed by the only place where his specialty and trade are in need. The employer (and only employer) runs a so-called “chop shop” in which stolen cars are broken up into components and sold. Our mechanic of conscience so far has worked only on legal activities, but his employer begins to apply pressure that he must now participate in the shop’s illegal activities. Knowing that there is no other place to go (the mechanic must stay in this community because of his family) for employment, does this fellow not risk loss of his livelihood?

Let us take another case of high school students. Most are good kids; a few get into mischief; some engage in dangerous anti-social behavior. In this case, there is student who minds her business, but she is targeted by a clique from the last group I identified. She is pressured and threatened to engage in dangerous, illegal conduct by members of this last group. There is no escape in that she cannot leave school; if she says anything to her parents or the school authorities, she has good reason to believe that the bullies will initiate reprisals that will lead to serious injury or death. In conscience, she stands her ground and refuses to comply with the demands. Does she not risk loss of her livelihood?

Let us take a third case. Private Jones is a member of an elite military unit in a dangerous foreign assignment where the military are pursuing terrorist suspects. The military unit finds and detains suspects. A superior decides to use interrogation methods that violate applicable international humanitarian law and international law. Private Jones realizes this and finds ways of not participating in these illegal activities for a while. But the day comes when pressure is put on Private Jones to assist in these unlawful methods. In conscience, the private resists, but more pressure is applied—pressure that threatens the private’s status in the elite unit. Does Private Jones not risk loss of livelihood?

Let us take a fourth case. After much difficulty in finding a university teaching post because of national financial constraints in higher education, Professor Davis has recently joined the faculty of Mosquito State University. She weathered the hiring battles and finally got a prized teaching post. What initially seems to be a stroke of good luck is not. The University has authorized the faculty to hire another person in an increasingly difficult job market. Thousands of candidates apply and a few are called on campus to be interviewed. Professor Davis is attracted to one candidate in particular because they both share similar philosophies on life and teaching. However, just before the faculty vote that will determine who will be the successful candidate, a senior member of the faculty who also chairs the rank and tenure committee stops by Professor Davis’s office and “suggests” that Professor Davis not vote for Davis’s favorite candidate. Even though the hiring vote is done by “secret” ballot, Davis knows that how each member of the faculty votes can be determined. Professor Davis, in conscience, is compelled to vote for this candidate, but Davis also knows the consequences for her presently untenured career. Does Professor Davis not risk loss of livelihood because of the exercise of conscience?

I believe that the distinction between physicians and pharmacists about losing or not losing their livelihood is not a helpful one. All persons have human dignity, and all persons of conscience can find themselves in situations where their integrity and their well-formed consciences in which they rely on the objective moral order can be assaulted. These assaults can occur in the daily life of the person wherever he or she works and lives. They can occur to someone who is a member of a learned profession and someone who is not. These pressures know no boundaries that are based on age. They can exist throughout the human condition. They do not visit only members of elite professions; they can threaten virtually anyone including our local pharmacist.   RJA sj

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Catholics in the body politic-- and some would have them out?

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I respect and honor the right of Kate Michelman, Nancy Keenan, and Frances Kissling to voice their opinions about the body politic (and I am sure they respect others to argue opposing views—don’t they?). These three individuals do not, however, speak for Catholic women. They speak for those with whom they agree—male and female, believer and agnostic. They speak for those who think that taking human life is a Constitutional right. I think that Mr. Collins could expand his horizons a bit and speak with Helen Alvare, Mary Ann Glendon, and Teresa Collett. (I will only mention three names here as he did.) If he were to speak with other women who did not and would not attend the NARAL banquet, he might have a different perspective on what Catholic women think. Moving along to the second point noted by John Miller about Mr. Collins: does he, Mr. Collins, dismiss the possibility that Mmes. Michelman, Keenan, and Kissling might have a detailed blueprint for a political strategy to affect the American democratic process at the national, state, and local levels? True, they probably have not taken over the Republican Party. Is it possible, though, that they may have taken over the Democratic Party? RJA sj

Monday, February 20, 2006

Personhood Bibliography

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

In response to Rob's question about a bibliography for personhood, with a focus on Catholic Legal Theory, I believe the following texts would need to be on the list: the works of de Vitoria and Suarez (they are conveniently situated in the Oxford Classics of International Law edited by James Scott Brown); Bartolome de Las Casas's In Defense of the Indians; Dred Scot v. Sanford, particularly the dissents; John XXIII's Pacem In Terris, especially N. 9; John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae; and Psalm 139, verses 13-16. The Pontifical Academy for Life also has some important texts available online at the Vatican website: www.vatican.va . My list is incomplete, but these texts would help the investigator plot a course of research interested in CLT.  RJA sj

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Academic Freedom and Catholic Character: a Response

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I join Rick in recommending Paolo Carroza’s Op-Ed essay that appeared in the February 14th issue of the Notre Dame “Observer.” Paolo has identified some important issues that are worth exploring and discussing with students, colleagues, administrators, alumni, and friends of Catholic colleges and universities. A substantial element of his essay examines academic freedom, and he uses Mary, the Mother of God, as an illustration and appropriate model of authentic academic freedom. Of course, Notre Dame is most fortunate to bear her name. I would like to call this example of freedom that Paolo develops as freedom for. Mary was free for truth beyond herself and the confines of her mind and experience. Initially she was perplexed by the announcement Gabriel made to her, but he insisted, “do not be afraid.” That is a phrase John Paul II used throughout his over twenty-six year papacy. She responded with “here I am” (the same words used by young Samuel) to embrace the unknown from God. For the rest of her life, she was devoted to this freedom for God’s truth that was beyond her, but she pondered about these matters as she did some twelve years later when she and Joseph found the young Jesus in the temple teaching the teachers of the law. Mary continually grew in wisdom because of her freedom for it.

Paolo speaks of another kind of freedom, which I shall call the freedom from. As he says, it is the “subjection of our reason to the whims of intellectual fashion.” And how might this fashion be characterized: it is the liberty of insulation and exaggerated autonomy and loneliness described by Justice Kennedy in Casey: “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe, and the mystery of human life.” To borrow from Louis XIV, this deprivation of searching is based on a false claim: “le monde c’est moi.” In essence, there is adherence to a shield of which Paolo speaks whose effect is separation from rather than exposure to a truth beyond one’s self. And for the believer, this truth is God. This is the truth that Mary came to know and cherish.

A short word about the Enslerian Monologues to which Paolo and Father Jenkins have referred. Several years ago, I joined a faculty e-mail debate about the propriety of their being staged on campus. The university president stated that they would not be performed on campus. This generated an outcry amongst some vocal faculty members. I decided to wade into the debate to offer support to the president and his decision. When I identified certain problems with one particular monologue, i.e., the seduction and statutory rape by a lesbian of a thirteen year old girl in the first edition that was termed “a good rape,” I was told that I had fabricated this slanderous commentary. My defense: please read pages 72 to 75 of the Villard Books (Random House), New York 1998, ISBN 0-375-75052-5, first edition. That did not the stop harsh and uncharitable (and, dare I say, untrue) words against me for my “misogynist, fascist and callous” views that I had the temerity to announce. Apparently, I was not a member of a particular “intellectual fashion” that was characteristic of the academic freedom to which many subscribed.

I have said enough for the time being. I’ll conclude with this endorsement of academic freedom for truth, justice, and the beauty about which Paolo speaks. With this approach, we, too, can follow Mary, the seat of wisdom, and encounter God who is the ultimate truth. And then, when we reach this truth one day, surely we will be happy. This is the freedom that is the raison d’être of the Catholic college and university. Thank you, Paolo, and thank you, Rick.   RJA sj

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Cartoons and Violence: "Is that all, Folks?"

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Patrick and Rick directly on this site and Steve indirectly have raised an important and relevant question about the Holy See’s recent, unsigned statement concerning the publication of cartoons in European media that has enraged members of the Islamic world. I am an insignificant voice in these matters, but I have tried to study carefully, objectively, and truthfully how the Holy See conducts itself in the manner that it does in the international order. What I say has no official voice; rather, it is simply the collected observations of a student of these matters. Still, the little I have gathered in my studies may be beneficial to those who read MOJ and to those who contribute to it.

A starting point is the need to remember that presently the Holy See has diplomatic relations with 174 countries in the world, including the US, members of the European Union, many Arab or Moslem countries, and others. Absent from this list are the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia. One can argue the merits of diplomatic relations, but they are a fact of life. It is sometimes said that diplomats—like lawyers—do not receive high marks in the public’s estimation. Regardless of one’s take on diplomats, they often provide the last opportunity for using reasoned discourse rather than force to resolve the problems of the world. An illustration follows: not all that long ago at the UN—a place where the tensions of the world are often evident, the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not speaking to one another at all. Even their harsh exchanges no longer took place. A delegate of the Holy See happened to be in the vicinity of an American diplomat and an Iranian diplomat who were not talking to one another. He introduced a topic of conversation that attracted the attention of these two diplomats. Then they were drawn into a conversation with one another. Did the conversation lead to improved relations? That I cannot answer. But this seems certain: a small door was opened a crack, a door that had been previously sealed from both sides. Did the world become a better or safer place because this conversation took place? Josef Stalin was correct: the Pope has no divisions of military power. He does, through his diplomatic service, have a small group of professional diplomats whose job it is to use moral argument and reasoned discourse to make the world a better place for all, including the Catholic community.

Let me add a few observations about this last point. In the US we do not have much evidence that the Catholic community is persecuted today as it was in the past. As Rick’s link to the Jody Bottum’s article points out, it has not disappeared entirely. Indeed, in the last few years the tone of anger and criticism has increased by members of the Church and those outside of it including influential elements of the mass media. With the exception of the one priest in Baltimore who was shot by an abuse victim several years ago, no one is yet taking deadly aim at Catholics in the US as best I can tell. But this is not the situation in other parts of the world. Clerics, men and women religious, and many laity have been physically targeted, sometimes with deadly force. Why? Because of their faith. The Holy See’s diplomatic service is well aware of this and, in its typically discreet way, tries to alleviate matters in dangerous, hostile environments. Sometimes this careful and prudential activity has led to the death of papal diplomats as the assassination of Archbishop Michael Courtney, the then papal nuncio in Burundi, demonstrated just a little over a couple of years ago. Early this week a Jesuit priest was assassinated in the same country. Last week another priest was assassinated in Turkey. In sub-Continent countries, Catholics—lay and clerics alike—have suffered harassment, torture, threats of death and death itself, and the reason for this is simple: they are Catholic. In these environments strong diplomatic rebukes uttering outrage and indignation may help but outright condemnations can increase the suffering and intensify dangers rather than curb hostility and bring calm. The papal diplomatic corps found this to be the case in Europe during the 1930s and early 1940s. One’s words must be carefully crafted because good intentions do not always ensure the desired results in this far-from-perfect world of human relations. Put simply, the mission of papal diplomacy in these contexts is simple: try to do good, and avoid evil, to borrow from Thomas Aquinas. The opportunity for criticism for pursuing this task can be manifold.

But these observations need to continue a bit more. Catholic Legal Theory begins to emerge, assuming that the rule of law has a place in CLT—and I believe it does. Papal diplomacy has upheld the need of juridical instruments and institutions to further good and to forestall evil in the world. Why? Sometimes a piece of paper does not mean much to a tyrant, but it means a great deal to the Church because it is the basis for demonstrating to the rest of the world that someone has a protection which someone else has threatened. Back in 1933 Eugenio Pacelli concluded a concordat with the nascent National Socialist regime in Germany. The future pope was criticized by many for concluding an agreement with Hitler, but as lawyers, we might reflect a bit more on this concordat with Germany. Concordats are designed to protect Catholic interests in a country. When you think about it, there is no need for a concordat if the country in question respects the Church and the People of God within its territory. But if it does not, a concordat is the basis to show that the Church and God’s people have legitimate interests, and if they are violated the rule of law can help right the wrong. Cardinal Faulhaber, the Archbishop of Munich who was no friend of the Nazis, realized that Hitler wanted an agreement with the Holy See for his own propaganda purposes. That is why the Cardinal said that the Church would be hanged with this agreement; but he hastened to add: without the concordat, the Church would be hanged, drawn and quartered. Hitler may have benefited from some propaganda, but the Church, which still suffered, could point to Hitler’s infractions and his lack of good faith. If nothing else, the Church had the law on its side, and Hitler did not.

A final observation needs to be made in this posting. Papal diplomacy, while usually mindful of the local consequences of its actions, typically realizes that what it does in one area of the world will sooner or later have implications elsewhere. This is a reality of the world in which we live. To some, it may seem that there should have been far more criticism by the Church of the acts of violence and none concerning the publication of some satirical images. And that is all, but is that really all? I just spoke of an historic concordat, but today the Church continues to pursue them to protect the right of the local Church in specific countries. Recently, the Holy See has concluded several concordats with a number of European countries. These agreements contain a “protection of the right of conscience and religious beliefs” clause. These provisions are designed to protect Catholics, who out of conscience and religious belief, who might be pressured into doing some act that violates their conscience and belief. Many European States, in the exercise of their sovereignty (an exercise of subsidiarity?) have agreed to these provisions, and they are now a part of these treaties. Sadly, elements within the European Union, which have agendas to further “reproductive health rights” and universal access to “reproductive health services” (just to mention a few items), have begun to question the “legitimacy” of these concordat provisions protecting conscience and religious belief. That is strange because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights acknowledge these rights of Catholics and everyone else. But, the very recent published Opinion of the Network of Independent Experts of the EU does not appear to agree with this assertion.

Like the rest of us, papal diplomats are human beings trying to do the right thing. Sometimes they succeed, but other times, they do not. For those who may be skeptical of them and their activities, we need to remember this: they are the ones who are asked to keep one eye on what they see nearby but the other eye must scan the distant horizons across the world. Why, because God’s Church and His people are everywhere, and it is this Church and these people that the diplomats have been called to serve. If their unsigned statements are disappointing to any of us, we might pause to think about what these words might mean to our sisters and brothers on distant shores. They may only be words, but words can mean a lot in a world where the rule of law is relevant.   RJA sj

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive