Seamus Hasson is both a friend and a hero of mine. I'm delighted that he will be receiving an honorary degree this weekend from the University of Notre Dame. Here is a really nice piece, by Kathryn Lopez, about him and his work.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
"Seamus Hasson: A Man for All Seasons"
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
More on Vanderbilt, student groups, and discrimination
The Wall Street Journal had a good op-ed, a few days ago, on the situation at Vanderbilt. As the title suggests, Vanderbilt's aggressive position reflects a misunderstanding of, or a misapplication of, the non-discrimination norm. As I wrote, in this Public Discourse essay:
Like other controversies involving, for example, the Boy Scouts, or the Christian Legal Society, the goings-on at Vanderbilt reveal a troubling confusion about “discrimination,” a confusion that, as it spreads, will undermine religious freedom, institutional pluralism, and civil society. This confusion travels with a deeply illiberal failure to appreciate that the kind of liberal democracy we should embrace is not “total” or “comprehensive”; in Lawrence Alexander’s words, it is not “liberalism all the way down,” and it does not insist that the rules that govern in the political sphere and context—non-discrimination, neutrality, “all comers”, etc.—need to, or even should, govern in other spheres and contexts.
Weigel, at Benedictine College, on religious freedom
Here is the commencement address that George Weigel delivered a few days ago at Benedictine College. A bit:
. . . [O]ne of the great challenges of your generation, my fellow-members of the Class of 2012 of Benedictine College, will be to rise to the defense of religious freedom in full. And, indeed, what could be a more apt challenge for the graduates of a college named in honor of the saint whose inspired vision and evangelical vigor saved the civilization of the classical world when it was in danger of being lost? What better challenge for the graduates of Benedictine College, named for one of the patrons of Europe, whose life-work saved the West as a civilizational enterprise built from the fruitful interaction of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome? . . .
Getting the Bishops' religious-liberty efforts wrong
In recent months, I've encountered a number of times the charge that the Bishops' emphasis in recent months on the importance of religious freedom, and on the reality of present-day threats to it, is really just an effort to re-brand their (that is, the Catholic Church's) opposition, on the merits, to legal abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, etc. The charge is, I'm afraid, effective -- at least in some quarters -- but it's also quite wrong. So, I was sorry to see it endorsed, over at Commonweal, in this post by Lisa Fullam, who writes:
Gee, let’s see: when the bishops’ “religious liberty” initiative was seen for what it was–an attack on contraception that appeared to lots of folks to be an attack on women, the GOP got suddenly quiet. We’ll see how many high-ranking republicans stand next to bishops in their “Fortnight of Freedom.” And the public credibility of the USCCB takes another blow.
No, that's not what it was, or is, and no "scare quotes" are needed around religious freedom. This is not about contraception (though I know that some conservative critics of the Bishops' religious-freedom efforts think it should be) but about the integrity, character, and appropriate independence of religious institutions. The notion that the recent impositions and attacks (and "attack" is the right word for the Administration's efforts in the Hosanna-Tabor case) are regarded by the Bishops as simply convenient occasions to pursue an anti-contraception agenda strikes me as implausible, to say the least.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Winright on Capital Punishment
At Catholic Moral Theology, Tobias Winright has a really good post up, responding to Charles Lane's recent argument that the death penalty is sometimes -- as in the case of Anders Breivik -- justified. (HT: Distinctly Catholic.)
I have admitted several times over the years here at MOJ to some reservations -- notwithstanding my view that capital punishment should be rejected -- about the way the Church's (relatively) recent criticisms of / reservations about / limitations on / possible justifications for capital punishment are expressed in the Catechism and elsewhere. These reservations, in a nutshell, reflect a worry that punishment-theory talk is collapsing into self-defense / legitimate-killing / double-effect talk.
As Winright writes, "the Catholic Church today has a principled moral stance that no longer accepts the death penalty as a form of retributive punishment." And because (as I see it) the only satisfactory justification for punishment is meaningful retribution (understood correctly, not merely as "revenge") by legitimate public authority, then I would think that this means the death penalty is not justified as punishment at all. (Winright notes that the 1992 Catechism was revised to remove mention of the "death penalty" from the discussion on criminal penalties.) That is, the death penalty is not permissible, at all. What is (possibly) permissible, I gather, is killing someone -- whether or not that person has been convicted of a capital crime? -- when such killing "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." But, to say (and teach) that the death penalty -- understood as a penalty -- is not permissible at all is, I think, to say and teach something (non-trivially) different from what, it seems to me, the Church said and taught for a long time. And, I cannot help thinking that the sharpness of this break is, sometimes, being softened by suggestions that "the death penalty" is permissible in extreme ("practically non-existent") circumstances.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Wilken on "The Catholic Roots of Religious Freedom"
This event looks great:
May 16: “The Catholic Roots of Religious Freedom,” by Robert WilkenPosted on May 16, 2012 by Ursula
Wednesday, May 16, 7:00 PM
“The Catholic Roots of Religious Freedom”
Robert Wilken, University of Virginia
Social Sciences 122
1126 East 59th Street
The roots of modern ideas of religious freedom are as much religious as they are political and philosophical. The American political leaders who first championed these ideas were well aware of the religious sources supporting their views. This lecture will explore how early Christian thinkers developed a theological understanding of religious freedom.
Robert Louis Wilken is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of the History of Christianity Emeritus at the University of Virginia. He is the author of numerous books, including The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God
"Digital Gluttony"
A student in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" seminar shares these thoughts (which hit pretty close to home!):
Digital Gluttony
Our worldviews have always shaped by the form of our consumption of information. With the rise of the internet we now have an ever-increasing amount of information, opinion, and entertainment at our fingertips but despite the increased number of options, do we make any better choices? While it might at first appear that a wealth of knowledge can only serve to enlighten, this is not always the case. Instead, experience seems to show that ignorance increases alongside insight. To be sure, the egalitarian nature of the internet allows for underrepresented minorities to find a voice, but it also runs the risk of drowning out the truth in a cacophony of critics.
The internet has truly made speech “free,” in that every passing thought can be instantly rebroadcast to the entire world. An unfortunate result is that those who speak wisely are often drowned out by those who speak most. Prior to the internet, transmission of information took effort, which meant that retransmission generally resulted in refinement. Now we can choose to be exposed directly to source instead of being forced to rely on our community to filter and process knowledge in our quest for truth.
And so we find ourselves falling victim to digital gluttony. Instead of eating indiscriminately, we watch indiscriminately, read indiscriminately, and listen indiscriminately. Rather than consuming only that which we can digest, we are tempted to indulge beyond that which is healthy, to “drink from the fire hose,” so to speak. When we exceed our ability to properly limit and process information, it is all too easy for our minds become burdened by inflammatory rhetoric, junk science, and unfounded assertions. Our consumption habits shape the way we think more than we are consciously aware. We should therefore take care to reflect on our habits and to restrain ourselves from engaging in digital gluttony.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Anchoress on Rep. Ryan and his Catholic critics
[Insert here all the necessary caveats about how there are, of course, plenty of reasonable and productive debates and discussions one could have about (i) the nature of the challenges facing our economy, broadly speaking; (ii) the extent to which Rep. Ryan's proposals respond well to those challenges; and (iii) what the Church's social teaching has to say about what counts as responding "well" to them. That said . . .]
The Anchoress's reaction to the Colbert & Fr. Reese bit, and to the criticism from (some) Catholic liberals (see, e.g., the Georgetown faculty letter), is pretty much the same as my own. There's an unattractive combination, in some of these reactions, of dismissiveness and smugness, but also anger, at the very idea that Rep. Ryan could be talking about his "savage" (etc., etc.) budget as reflecting an effort to work out, in contemporary conditions, the call and challenge of the Church's social teaching. Sure, we all know (thanks to Rob Vischer and others!) that "subsidiarity" is about more than devolution and that -- in Russ Hittinger's words -- the point of "subsidiarity is a normative structure of plural social forms, not necessarily a trickling down of power or aid," but Rep. Ryan would hardly be the first lay person in public life to over-simplify a principle of Catholic social thought in a (good faith) effort to apply it.
Now, as the President likes to say, "let me be clear": I am not endorsing all the details of the Ryan, or any other proposal. (Simpson-Bowles looked good to me, I admit, but what do I know?) I do think, though, as I've said here at MOJ (too) often, that it's lame for politicians to lob charges of "savagery" while (unlawfully) sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Rep. Ryan is inviting us to think about our pressing obligations in terms of ideas that he connects publicly (and plausibly) with the Church's social teaching. This is, it seems to me, a good thing.
UPDATE: Here is Ryan Anderson, discussing the same subject:
House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R–WI) is being criticized by the secular and religious left for comments he made about the role his Catholic faith played in crafting his budget. The most outrageous criticism is that it played any role at all.
The reactions to Ryan’s comments should call to mind three important things: (1) religious values should be welcomed in the public square, (2) not all religious values are based on divine revelation, and (3) translating moral principles into policy requires both prudence and technical expertise. . . .
. . .
Ryan’s proposed budget makes prudential and technical decisions when it comes to translating his moral principles into public policy. There are certainly other, perhaps even better, instantiations. But to characterize Ryan’s budget as a “punishing and heartless assault on Americans” and to claim that he “hates government” is to engage in some of the worst forms of demagoguery, and it is especially pernicious when religion is involved.
If theologians disagree with Ryan’s policies, they might hesitate before asserting that he rejects religious principle and instead seek to understand the prudential considerations that motivated his judgments. Much of the dispute lies not over how best to understand the principle of subsidiarity but on whether current federal entitlement spending is sustainable and whether the programs they fund are effective. It is disagreement about this issue that separates Ryan from his religious critics. . .
[Before you object in the comments, please re-read the first few sentences of this post, above.]
Monday, May 7, 2012
"You, me, and everybody else"
Some thoughts about social networks, friendship, and community from a student in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" class:
You, Me, and Everyone We Know
It is worth noting that Facebook disclosed yesterday (May 3) an IPO target price that pegs the company’s worth at $96B. If the numbers hold, this would make Facebook the most valuable company at the time of its IPO in U.S. history, eclipsing the former record holder (UPS in 1996) by some $36B. According to a CIO Journal article, this figure suggests that every user is worth about $81 to Facebook. Every friendship is worth $0.62. And the average profile page may be worth up to $1800. The story is well-known. Roughly eight years ago, a jilted lover started a website, and Tuesday’s target valuation makes the erstwhile Romeo, Mr. Zuckerberg, worth more than the entire annual economic output of a host of countries.
I am 28 years old, but decades older—if my old man* counts as a relevant measure—when it comes to being a buzzkill about online social networks (but I love blogs). Full disclosure, I have certainly been known throughout my law school career to fill my computer screen with GCHATS rather than Securities Regulation notes, but that—I think most will agree—is nothing more than a classic case of opting for a lesser evil.
By now it’s a familiar refrain about technology, but I like the real thing better. Friendship, I mean. Of course, I understand the value of photo-sharing and keeping in touch with those far distant, and all the other rationalizations made in favor of spending a couple of brainless hours every day tending to one’s online image. But give me a garden rather than Farmville, a bottle of wine and a few good friends rather than a photo captioned “Wish you were here,” or when necessary, just a quiet night free from the intrusive and distracting technologies that can imperil true leisure. I wish I could say that it was discipline and self-restraint that counseled my own departure from Facebook, but in fact it was kind of the opposite. A nasty break-up, and I found I couldn’t handle the online fallout, the access, the tempting, open window on a life of which I was no longer a meaningful part. So, I quit. And I liked it. But that’s just the thing: the self-restraint and discipline I lacked—extraordinary and rare traits in my experience—may be necessary to dilute the corrosive effects to community posed by these nascent, virtual replications. It would be a joke worthy of Orwell (who, by the way, didn’t tell a lot of jokes) if the blokes who set out to create an online community ended up ruining the genuine thing and got paid a packet to do it.
So, okay, maybe it’s not quite as bad as all that. But the big numbers, when you think about what it is exactly that is being valued, should at least give us pause and the opportunity to consider possible ramifications for the Catholic idea of community, for the families that form the vital cells of those communities, and for the body of Christ.
Finding God in all things . . . for lawyers
A student in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" class shared these thoughts about Ignatian discernment and conscience-examination:
Nowadays it is extraordinary difficult to be a Catholic that live his/her faith in a daily effort to listen and obey God’s will.
We are normally submerged in a routine full of movement, noises and distractions that make it very complicated for us to hear and feel God during the day; then, when we arrive home we are so tired of the work that we don't want to dedicate time to something that will require an effort, like prayer.
Days and weeks pass with the same usual schedule and after some time we have forgotten how to give Jesus part of our time besides going to Mass on Sundays.
I will like to share my personal experience related to this situation; I’ve studied with the Jesuits since elementary through law school and I’ve learned that one of the things that was most important to St. Ignatius is to understand that “one can find God in all things because all things descend from God and speak of God”; this idea of Ignatius leads us to search and feel God in all the things in our daily life.
When I was younger this was not so difficult to do. Being constantly surrounded by teachers and communities that were involved in social apostolates I could sense the presence of God in my life frequently. Yet, when I started to have a busier life I discovered that in order to find God in all things someone has to actually make the effort of looking for Him.
The exam of conscience proposed by St. Ignatius is a delightful tool for do this effort and it is a realistic option in the busy world of these days: every night one must take a time –alone, quiet, peaceful- to examinee the day and find the moments in which God’s presence was stronger; recognizing these moments we will start learning the things in our lives in which God is more and more present.
It takes will and discipline to introduce the exam of conscience in our daily agenda, but the fruits of doing it are precious. The exam will become a privileged moment with Jesus and savoring it will bring us closer to the openness we need to truly find God in all things.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
