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.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Some (more) thoughts about Church and State

This is just a follow-up to Fr. Araujo's very helpful post the other day on John Courtney Murray and church-state relations.  As Matthew Cantirino noted, over at First Things, the upshot of Fr. Araujo's post is that "separation is not indifference."  Fr. Araujo noted, among other things:

. . . The fact that the Church and State are different and distinct does not necessarily imply that they cannot have a relationship. Moreover, separation is not synonymous with indifference. Why? Both the Church and the State have a critical interest in the common good and its furtherance. . . .

This is a point that I also tried to develop, in this short tribute-essay for my colleague, Prof. Robert Rodes (an amazing scholar who was, in fact, cited in John Courtney Murray's We Hold These Truths).  The paper is called "Pluralism, Dialogue, and Freedom," and it focuses in part on Rodes's use of the term "nexus", rather than "wall of separation", when talking about church-state relations:

A “nexus,” according to my dictionary, is a “means of connection; a link or tie.”  It suggests a relation, even a symbiosis, between two distinct things—neither a collapse of one into the other nor a rigid segregation of the one from the other. The term captures well, then, Rodes’s thinking about church, state, and society. As his friend Professor Thomas Shaffer put it, “the foundation of [Rodes’s] church-state theory is that the two are so intertwined—so much the remnant of Christendom—that they could not part even if they wanted to.”  This is, Shaffer notes, a “strikingly unique position” in the church-state field.

Five years ago on MOJ: "Religion and the Common Good"

On April 27, 2007, I posted this:

Here's Archbishop Chaput, on "religion and the common good." A bit:

Only one question really matters. Does God exist or not? If he does, that has implications for every aspect of our personal and public behavior: all of our actions, all of our choices, all of our decisions. If God exists, denying him in our public life—whether we do it explicitly like Nietzsche or implicitly by our silence—cannot serve the common good, because it amounts to worshiping the unreal in the place of the real. . . .

We most truly serve the common good by having the courage to be disciples of Jesus Christ. God gave us a free will, but we need to use it. Discipleship has a cost. Jesus never said that we didn’t need a spine. The world doesn’t need affirmation. It needs conversion. It doesn’t need the approval of Christians. It needs their witness. And that work needs to begin with us. Bernanos said that the “scandal of Creation [isn’t] suffering but freedom.” He said that “moralists like to regard sanctity as a luxury; actually it is a necessity.” He also said that “one may believe that this isn’t the era of the saints; that the era of the saints has passed. [But] it is always the era of the saints.”

The only thing that matters is to be a saint. At least we can try. And if we do, God will take care of the rest.

 

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Rep. Paul Ryan's Whittington Lecture

Today, Rep. Ryan delivered the Whittington Lecture at Georgetown University.  The text is available here.  Among other things, the lecture has an admirably civil and warm tone (I didn't hear the talk itself), which I confess I might have had difficulty in maintaining, in the wake of the snooty and dismissive letter he received by way of welcome from a number of Georgetown faculty.  Besides the regrettably-common-but-still-simplistic identification of the current state of social-welfare programs with policies clearly mandated by a conscientious application of Catholic Social Teaching, the Georgetown letter snarkily charged that the Ryan budget proposal "appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”   Ryan has made clear that his alleged devotion to Rand is an "urban legend", and elaborated:

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.  [RG:  Nor me!

Because -- like most of those who have criticized the Ryan budget -- I actually don't know everything about it, or everything about its implications, or everything about the soundness of its empirical premises and predictions, I don't presume to endorse it uncritically or dismiss it out of hand.  It does seem to me, though, that Ryan is entirely right (a) to challenge the so-tired idea that Catholic Social Teaching maps neatly onto the social-welfare, spending, and taxation proposals and priorities of the Democratic Party (just as "subsidiarity" is not merely "devolution" or "small government," "solidarity" and "community" are not Catholic baptisms of statism and bureaucracy) and (b) to insist that those charged with authority in the political community are morally obligated to address the challenge of our "debt-fueled economic crisis."  As he says, of course, "how we do this is a question for prudential judgment, about which people of good will can differ."  There is, however, nothing Catholic about election-oriented complacency (see, e.g., the Senate's indifference to its obligation to pass a budget at some point) in the face of mounting debt, the weight of which can only crush the hopes and opportunities of young people, children, and future generations.  Ryan critics who stop at criticism, without at least proposing, for consideration and debate, feasible changes in course that they plausibly and in good faith believe would respond to the challenges he identifies, are not, in my view, serious.

"Growing in Love": Congrats to Susan!

I'm delighted to report that our own Susan Stabile's new book, "Growing in Love and Wisdom:  Tibetan Buddhist Sources for Christian Meditation," is available for pre-ordering now.  Check it out!

In Growing in Love and Wisdom, Susan Stabile draws on a unique dual perspective to explore the value of interreligious dialogue, the essential spiritual dynamics that operate across faith traditions, and the many fruitful ways Buddhist meditation practices can deepen Christian prayer.

Raised as a Catholic, Stabile devoted 20 years of her life to practicing Buddhism and was ordained as a Tibetan Buddhist nun before returning to Catholicism in 2001. She begins the book by examining the values and principles shared by the two faith traditions, focusing on the importance of prayer--particularly contemplative prayer--to both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism. Both traditions seek to effect a fundamental transformation in the lives of believers, and both stress the need for experiences that have deep emotional resonance, that go beyond the level of concepts to touch the heart. Stabile illuminates the similarities between Tibetan Buddhist meditations and Christian forms of prayer such as Ignatian Contemplation and Lectio Divina; she explores as well such guided Buddhist practices as Metta and Tonglen, which cultivate compassion and find echoes in Jesus' teachings about loving one's enemies and transcending self-cherishing. The heart of the book offers 15 Tibetan Buddhist practices adapted to a contemplative Christian perspective. Stabile provides clear instructions on how to do these meditations as well as helpful commentary on each, explaining its purpose and the relation between the original and her adaptation. Throughout, she highlights the many remarkably close parallels in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha.

Arguing that engagement between religions offers mutual enrichment and greater understanding of both traditions, Growing in Love and Wisdom shows how Buddhist meditation can be fruitfully adapted for Christian prayer.

Great news: Hasson to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

I am delighted to pass on the news that my friend Seamus Hasson -- the founder of and inspiration for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty -- will receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame (his alma mater) at commencement this year.  Hasson is, for me, a hero -- his book, "The Right to Be Wrong", is an excellent brief for religious liberty as a fundamental right for all persons, because they are persons -- and the Becket Fund is a crucial player in the struggle to vindicate and protect religious freedom.

Unfortunately, the Cardinal Newman Society -- for which Notre Dame's missteps seem to serve as never-to-be-missed occasions for direct-mail and online fundraising -- has focused instead on the person named to be the speaker at a separate (i.e., not Commencement) event for the Graduate School.  (I think my bona fides as someone who cares deeply about the Catholic character of our Catholic universities are pretty well established, but I confess to being frustrated by watchdogs who notice only Notre Dame's occasional errors and challenges -- and disproportionately focus on Notre Dame's, as opposed to others' -- while ignoring its strengths, progress, and promise.)  

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

A student's defense of Bishop Jenky's homily

As I've mentioned before, I invited students in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" seminar to do a blog-post for MOJ.  Theresa Smart, a political-theory student at Notre Dame, who is also in the seminar, shares these thoughts about the current controversy surrounding Bishop Jenky's recent homily:

Rarely does a Catholic homily reverberate through cyberspace to quite the same extent as that of the homily which Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, gave before a crowd of over 500 men from the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois, on April 14.  Read the full text here: http://www.thecatholicpost.com/post/PostArticle.aspx?ID=2440.  Jenky gave the homily at a Mass culminating the annual diocesan men’s march, “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith.” 

Jenky issued a bold call for “heroic Catholicism.” He also sparked a firestorm of controversy—including a formal complaint filed against him with the IRS by Chicago’s Anti-Defamation League—by drawing explicit parallels between the path upon which Obama’s administration seems to have embarked and those followed by Bismarck, Clemenceau, Hitler, and Stalin: 

“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. 

“In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path. 

“Now things have come to such a pass in America that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgment seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.” 

I cannot judge on the legal matter of whether Bishop Jenky’s words technically violate the IRS Revenue Ruling 2007-41 touching the political activity of 501(c)(3) organizations.  But I do venture to suggest that perhaps Jenky’s words are true.  How different is his message from that of Pope John Paul II in Centesimus annus

“The root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate—no individual, group, class, nation, or State… 

“The culture and praxis of totalitarianism also involve a rejection of the Church.  The State or the party which claims to be able to lead history towards perfect goodness, and which sets itself above all values, cannot tolerate the affirmation of an objective criterion of good and evil beyond the will of those in power, since such a criterion, in given circumstances, could be used to judge their actions.  This explains why totalitarianism attempts to destroy the Church, or at least to reduce her to submission, making her an instrument of its own ideological apparatus” (¶44-45). 

Serious Catholics ought to take Jenky’s suggestions seriously.  Does our culture and political order affirm the transcendent dignity of the human person?  Or is Jenky right to discern in recent governmental trends indications of a nascent “culture and praxis of totalitarianism”?  The bishop by no means intends insensitivity towards victims of Stalin or Hitler’s abominable practices.  If anything, by drawing such parallels he intends to generate a greater sensitivity towards the millions of innocent victims of abortion in America—that which has come to be known in some circles as the “American Holocaust.”

I do not think Jenky should either renounce his “incendiary statement” or be asked to resign from the Notre Dame Board of Fellows, as called for by 95 members of the Notre Dame faculty in a recent letter to the administration: http://www.pjstar.com/news/x787564497/Letter-from-Notre-Dame-faculty-demands-Jenky-apology?zc_p=1.  And in fact, I think that Notre Dame, as a Catholic university, should follow his example in standing up for religious freedom and against the insidious soft despotism of relativism that pervades mainstream culture.  Perhaps if more members of the clergy and scholarly communities had issued “incendiary statements” like this one, some of the gravest atrocities of the past century might have been preempted by a bolder and more conscientious citizenry. 

As a final note, this editorial published by the Editor-in-Chief of Peoria’s Catholic newspaper contains some interesting ideas and helps put Bishop Jenky’s remarks in perspective: http://www.cdop.org/post/PostArticle.aspx?ID=2437.

Bill Piatt, "Catholic Legal Perspectives"

Just out from Carolina Academic Press is Prof. Bill Piatt's (St. Mary's) book, "Catholic Legal Perspectives."  Learn more here.

Deus Caritas Est, budgets, politics, and the common good

A student in my "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" class, Coby Ascunce, shared these thoughts, for posting here at MOJ, in response to recent letters regarding budget proposals and Catholic Social Teaching:

As was posted last week, the USCCB recently released several letters expressing its opposition to some of the cuts in the newest budget proposal.  While the USCCB certainly fights for an admirable cause by speaking out against policy measures that will harm the poor and the vulnerable, we must look critically at whether or not these statements are within the proper bounds of the USCCB’s role according to Catholic social doctrine.  In Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict states: 

A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church.  Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

 The question then becomes whether the USCCB’s statements were attempts to bring openness of mind to the common good or attempts to organize a just society through the policy measures that the USCCB sees as best.  According to CSD, the former is beneficial and appropriate, but the latter violates the Church’s appropriate political role.  However, an interesting question remains.  Even if the USCCB’s actions were out of line, were they beneficial to American Catholics by providing clear instructions on specific policy matters? 

Deus Caritas Est provides one last piece of guidance—a challenge to us as Catholics, but especially as Catholic lawyers:

 The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society . . . is proper to the lay faithful. 

In other words, it is our duty to see past partisan lines and fight for the political policies that best achieve the common good and a just society—not the duty of the Church or the USCCB.  This is a heavy burden, but one that must be embraced in order to truly infuse the temporal order with Christian values.

Munoz on the Bishops' religious-freedom statement

My Notre Dame colleague, Phillip Munoz (Pol. Sci.), has a piece in The Weekly Standard on the Bishops' religious-freedom statement, "Our First, Most Cherished Liberty."  Check it out.

Congratulations to Michael Moreland!

Our own Michael Moreland has been granted tenure, and promoted to Professor, at Villanova.  Congratulations, Michael!