My follow up to the posting by Rob and Rick on the UNFPA will be brief and empirical. I was intrigued by Mr. Kristof's portrayal of UNFPA. I must confess that I saw a very different organization at work in my 8 years experience at the UN. If the UNFPA directed its advocacy efforts and its in situ projects on basic health care concerns for the world's neediest rather than on "gender" issues of "reproductive health rights and services", the world, especially mothers and children, would be a lot better off than they are. And so would many future members of the human family who sadly and tragically will not see the light of day because of this organization's activities, which are in desperate need of reformation. RJA sj
Friday, October 28, 2005
More on the UNFPA
Thursday, October 27, 2005
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
My thanks to Rob and Rick for their comments on the Convention and thanks for the views of Jonathan Watson and Pat Shrake that were passed along. It is interesting to note that the manner in which the reference to John Paul II was placed in the source that Rob quotes tends to suggest the His Holiness made a statement about the Convention. Indeed, he took the statement from the Declaration and Reservation that is recorded on the HCHR website. What that body does not convey is the impossibility that the Holy Father could have said this in 1984, five years before the Convention text was finally adopted and submitted to the UN General Assembly so that it could be forwarded for signature and ratification.
Actually, the paragraph that is quoted on the HCRC website is a part of the Declaration and Reservations made by then Archbishop Renato Martino, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations on April 20, 1990 in which he made reference to the Pope’s 1984 comment that children are “that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity.” The Pope himself was not commenting on the Convention, it was rather Archbishop Martino providing the Holy See’s view at the time it signed and acceded to the Convention regarding the Holy Father’s great concern about the welfare of children.
When all is said, the Holy See did approve the Convention subject to its Declaration and Reservations. The reservations foresaw problems lurking in the future that were manifested in Cairo and Beijing several years later. So, it is important for us to understand that the Holy See became a party to the Convention subject to this Declaration and Reservations. Time after time the Holy See has had many opportunities to voice its concern about “rights” of the child that are not anchored to its well known position on the family and parents rights and prerogatives that are protected in earlier instruments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So I am suggesting that it is quite possible and consistent with the Church’s view to develop Catholic Legal Theory that is skeptical of some current views of what the Convention means.
From a Catholic perspective, the Convention has to be understood in the context of the many affirmations made by the Holy See regarding families, parents, and children. Indeed, one could not understand the Church’s endorsement of the Convention without an appreciation of the Church’s Charter of the Rights of the Family (1983) and John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (1982). As I have mentioned earlier, the Church’s endorsement of the Convention was also before the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development and the 1995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women. These conferences brought to light understandings of human rights that are in conflict with those of many States including the Holy See. Moreover, in recent years, strained and exaggerated interpretations of provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child have begun to surface in UN debates with which the Church has taken issue and expressed its disagreement. I hasten to add that the Holy See typically looks at all relevant documents and texts and their provisions in asserting its views on the meaning of the articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many of these texts, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights talk about the rights of parents with regard to the proper upbringing of children. To some extent these are reflected in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But there are indeed those who take a very different approach in giving meaning to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child so that children essentially become divorced from the protection and the upbringing rights and duties of parents. From these perspectives, it would seem that the child is an autonomous entity from its birth and no person, including no parent, has the right to interfere. Strange interpretation, but it and others like it exist. I hasten to add that some of the newer interpretations of the Convention open the door to “experts” in children—but not their parents— being able to determine what is in the best interest of the child when the child himself or herself cannot make that determination. Some of these experts are aligned with organizations like Planned Parenthood.
These are relevant matters to take into account when one considers the Convention and its meaning today. It would be fair to say that the general understanding of its provisions in 1990 are challenged by some of today’s strong, positivist interpretations. The concerns raised in previous postings on this topic are genuine and need to be taken into account regarding what this Convention means and what it does not. RJA sj
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Diversity of Cultural Expression Convention
My thanks to Rick for his recent posting on the UNESCO adoption of the text for the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Protection. We live in interesting times. I still need to study the voting record more carefully, but I would like to know which of the 37 Members of the General Conference were not present to vote. So far, this information has not been posted by UNESCO. It is possible these Members were out for a coffee during the vote. This happens when an important vote takes place in an international organization on a text for a proposed juridical instrument. It is always important to know who did not vote. There were 148 yes votes, there were two no votes (US and Israel), and there were four abstentions (this information is still not available). This means that thirty-seven members of the conference did not register their views. This is important to know. It is also important to recall that some countries have recently taken steps over the past several years to restrict various kinds of transmissions that their citizens can receive from the Internet and satellite communications, etc. It is also relevant to note that the number of States needed for ratification is rather low, 30. The normal practice when a controversial and important treaty is at stake is that it requires 60 ratifications, about one-third of the UN membership, before it goes into force. This number is half that. Should the instrument go into force with 30 Parties, what does that say about its universality as the jus gentium? There are a number of recent treaties which only required 30 ratifications, but they have still not gone into force because of the failure to reach the 30 ratifications. Lots of countries voted for the text, but they did not ratify the instrument. I would suggest that this treaty needs more careful study which would include who didn't vote; who will vote for ratification; and when will they vote for ratification. I think most folks are generally supportive of protecting the wide variety of world cultures, but there seems to be something still to be learned that was not reported in the Washington Post article to which Rick referred. As the news people are fond of saying, "more at eleven...." RJA sj
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
A little more on Sovereignty
Thanks to Patrick for his posting of earlier today on Dignity in the Classroom. All of us and Patrick’s students might reflect on a dimension of sovereignty that often gets overlooked or forgotten, and that is popular sovereignty. For almost a decade I have been involved in international debates amongst diplomats concerning sovereignty. In these contexts, sovereignty often has a negative meaning associated with it. Of course, the illustrations or examples that come up in discussion are typically of some repressive or totalitarian regime. But the sovereignty of peoples in the exercise of their self-determination is usually absent from the discussion or debate. I think that Catholic Legal Theory has a wonderful opportunity to contribute to the misapprehensions about sovereignty when it is takes place in the context of a self-determination of people who choose to come together and live according to a set of principles and norms that are wholesome. One does not hear about such sovereignty in the popular press or the halls of diplomatic conferences. Since it does not, I realize that the idea of subsidiarity is not in the vocabulary of these influential people. So, I humbly suggest that CLT has an opportunity of which it can take advantage and educate the world. Or to use a phrase of our Lord, to go forth and make disciples of all nations! RJA sj
Sunday, October 9, 2005
Philadelphia, the Grand Jury, and Statutes of Limitation or Repose
I would like to offer an initial reflection on Mark's important post of earlier today. I have been thinking about the statute of limitations issue regarding sex abuse cases that involve the Church for some time. The tragedy that surrounds us is serious, I hasten to add. But one important issue to consider regarding the issue Mark has raised is this: if statutes of limitations are suspended/revoked for priests, bishops, and dioceses, then they will have to be suspended/revoked for the lawyers, doctors, counselors and therapists who advised bishops and religious superiors, etc. And then after this happens, all statutes of limitations and repose involving criminal and civil cases are open to suspension or revocation. Why? I would start of with the Equal Protection argument under the Constitution. If statutes of limitation or repose can be suspended in one type of case, equal protection would require the same in all cases. If not, there is no equal protection under the law. I found it interesting that Prof. Marci Hamilton, whose work has been the topic of previous posts on MOJ, served as a Constitutional law advisor to the DA on this investigation. As she said in her own posting, "I was asked by District Attorney Abraham to be the constitutional law advisor to the grand jury, and willingly assisted the Philadelphia investigation." RJA sj
Saturday, October 8, 2005
Can a "Human rights event" be "religion free"? A response
Thanks to Rick for his posting on human rights. A quick look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various juridical instruments regarding human rights will confirm the existence of the right of religious belief and the protections that should be accorded to people of religious belief. Sadly, some proponents of "human rights" today do not seem to agree. I recently looked at a message posted by Barry Lynn on the Americans United for Separation etc. His editorial remarks concerned the actions of a young woman who stood outside of a building (a church, I believe) where a religious group was gathering to discuss public policy issues. She held a sign that read "Honk if you are for separation." Rev. Lynn commented on how wonderful she and her actions were. One implication of his essay was that she had a right to protest a religious gathering and to do so in a public place. However, he seemed to question the rights of those gathered inside the church to assemble. We have been blessed to live in interesting times. RJA sj
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Catholic Public Officials, again
In doing some recent research on the "Papal Diplomacy and International Organizations" series that I am co-authoring, I came across an interesting statement credited to President John F. Kennedy when he participated in the Centennial Celebration at Boston College on April 20, 1963. It places his Houston/Baptist pre-election speech that has been previously addressed by other MOJ participants in context. The President was an astute politician who likely chose to address audiences on friendly terms. Having said this, his remarks made as President at Boston College stand in contrast to his remarks to the Protestant ministers as candidate for President. In commenting on the recently released Papal Encyclical Pacem in Terris, the President said at Boston College: "As a Catholic, I am proud of it, and as an American I have learned from it." In his further remarks on the encyclical's "penetrating analysis," the President continued by saying "that document surely shows that on the basis of one great faith and its tradition there can be developed counsel on public affairs that is of value to all men and women of good will." Maybe the wall of separation is porous after all... RJA sj
A comment on the Jenkins address
I would like to accept Rick’s kind invitation to respond to Fr. Jenkins’ inaugural address at Notre Dame. At the outset, I concur with Fr. Jenkins that his responsibilities as president are “awesome.” But then again, one could say the same thing about those faced by any disciple. He points to the need to be humble, and this is an important step forward for him and those who will be monitoring his progress as President. For with humility, any person will likely seek the counsel of others, including God, in the execution of the duties that will be encountered. Humility also carries any of us to the pursuit of a higher wisdom to address responsibly the challenges of today and tomorrow. These attributes are also a part of any scholar’s pursuit of knowledge and the research undertaken in this objective. Perhaps Fr. Jenkins intended to say that all of this background is a way of using the mind to prepare the soul for the union with the communion of saints and God—the inevitable human destiny each person has but of which the individual may not be aware. Cultivating this awareness is also a part of the responsibility of the Catholic university.
Fr. Jenkins’ reference to that which is “distinctively Catholic” is an important and relevant assertion. And he prudently refers to the writings of John Paul II including his Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae. He also properly notes that the pursuit of knowledge must be twinned with reflection on the ethical implications of what is right and what is wrong with that discovered in research, teaching, and discussion. This does not always happen in the work of research and teaching universities these days. I think that this is implicit in his alarm about the dangers of technical knowledge outpacing moral wisdom. Without the latter, the former can lead many down a problematic path. And this union he identifies is a part of the intellectual tradition which the Catholic university is charged to pass on.
I would like to fortify his brief discussion and warning about how the great western universities of the world were generated by the activities of the Church but today have little connection with their religious foundation. It comes as no surprise to me that several well-researched books on this very topic have emerged from the pens (and computers) of scholars at Notre Dame! The manner in which the three principles Fr. Jenkins identifies that define the Catholic university become the common charge of all who come to Notre Dame or any other educational institution that calls itself Catholic. One of the most serious contemporary challenges to this charge is found in the hiring process of faculty and administrators. If this hiring process does not adequately take account of these three principles and others related to them, no single human being, including the president of the institution, will be able to stem the tide of the secularism or the indifference to Catholic identity and soul that has claimed other institutions. If we expect truth in advertising about the products we purchase and the health care we receive, for example, we should also demand the same from those institutions which claim they are Catholic. Catholics and other people of faith have been the victims of hiring committees who did not see the institution’s Catholic identity and the principles defined by Fr. Jenkins as essential to their charge. This is not only a pity; it is a tragedy that must be confronted by Fr. Jenkins and those who share his perspective.
My final comment at this stage is to offer a brief reflection on his statement that the Catholic university’s research, indeed all its activities I would hasten to add, must not be separated from the Catholic mission. The Catholic educational enterprise must draw its strength from the mission and continue to enhance it as he correctly asserts. Perhaps one way of reminding ourselves that this is the common charge of those who are in some way members of the Catholic university is to take to heart Saint Matthew’s Gospel and the charge given by Jesus to his earliest disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” The ways in which the Catholic university executes this charge are diverse, but the command for us all is the same. RJA sj
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
The Confirmation Process
Over the past several days, a number of Senators have publicly released their respective positions on Judge Roberts’ nomination to be the next Chief Justice of the United States. A number of those indicating that they will vote against the nomination have stated that while the Judge is qualified, even well qualified, they do not know enough about his views or positions on vital issues. Several of these Senators who have concluded that they will vote against the nomination, including three on the Senate Judiciary Committee, are Catholic. Since MOJ is a forum for developing Catholic legal theory, I would like to offer a brief comment on the possible contribution Catholic legal theory can make to the present debate in the Senate on Judge Roberts’ nomination.
It appears that most Senators who have spoken so far have concluded that the Judge is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court and to be the Chief Justice. However, their “concerns” (a word that has crept up in various discussions about Senators’ positions) really seem to be that they do know a good deal about the Judge and his positions, but they disagree with them. I believe that any judicial candidate, including Judge Roberts, must be cautious in giving too much detail about one’s views on matters that are likely to come before the Court in the future. Being a judicial officer requires the person holding the office to have an “open mind” so that he or she can fairly hear and understand the positions of the parties and their views of the applicable law. The judge must then consider these views objectively to search for the truth about the case. This has a parallel with the Catholic notion of the search for truth as the quest for the “transcendent and objective” and the moral order that follows. In short, this means considering the case beyond personal knowledge and prejudices. The judge has to consider what each party has presented and argued. Judge Roberts appears to have demonstrated that he will pursue this approach, and, in fact, that is what he has done as a Circuit Court of Appeals Judge.
Interestingly, much of this Catholic contribution to the judicial process can apply to the work of the Senator. For example, let’s take the case of a Senator who is known to be a strong supporter of civil rights legislation. A colleague in the Senate intends to submit a bill addressing civil rights issues. Will the first Senator automatically be a co-sponsor of the colleague’s proposal? In short, can this Senator and the Senator’s constituents immediately say they know what the Senator’s position is? Most likely not. For prudential, political, and other considerations including objectivity, the Senator would likely have to say that the bill merits serious study. The Senator would probably want to know what other colleagues think after they have studied the text. Moreover, there would inevitably be some discussion about whether friendly amendments could be made to the bill to reflect other views or would a completely different bill have to be submitted to get those views into the discussion. This, too, is an exercise in objectivity and looking beyond one’s personal knowledge and prejudices.
If it works for Senators, might it also work for judges? RJA sj
Friday, September 23, 2005
More on Nostra Aetate
As a follow up to Rick's post on the fortieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Pontifical Gregorian University will host a four day symopsium offering reflections on the Conciliar document. Presenters will speak from Catholic, other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other perspectives. The link to the eighteen page detailed program is here . RJA sj
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
