"Freedom of religion does not include freedom to kill your children," Michael reminds us. Indeed, it does not. Unfortunately, in this op-ed, Prof. Kmiec seemed to suggest otherwise. I criticized this suggestion here (charitably, but -- I thought -- with rapier-like effectiveness. =-) ). Perhaps, though, in so doing, I was hateful, spiteful, mean-spirited, partisan, etc. I hope not. (As David Lee Roth might put it, "I don't feel hateful!").
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Indeed, it does not
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Law Blog rankings
Now that we have a working site-meter count, we are finally eligible for Paul Caron's rankings. The 2008 figures are here. We are comfortably in the middle of a closely bunched group, ranked between 20 and 35. (No one comes close to Instapundit, Hewitt, and Volokh.) Thanks to all MOJ readers and bloggers!
"Catholic" Legal Theory
I appreciate Steve S.'s recent post, although I continue to believe that the discussion at Mirror of Justice is dramatically more rich and diverse than it is at any other group blog of which I am aware. (One reason for this is that there are interesting differences -- regarding interests, approaches, etc. -- among those whom Steve regards as "conservative", and among those he is calling "progressive.") But anyway . . .
Steve suggests that one way to classify, and distinguish among, the MOJ bloggers is to distinguish "between those who wholly subscribe to the Magisterium and those who do not." I wonder, though -- I would welcome comments from those who characterize themselves as "liberal", politically -- whether it might also be that some among us, and in the broader Catholic community, who are more on the "left", politically, do so not because they reject, or dissent from, the Church's teaching authority, but because they understand the content and implications of the Church's authoritative teaching differently? Maybe, given Steve's taxonomy, these folks are "conservative", notwithstanding their "liberal" politics? What do others think?
I'm also curious -- and, in asking this question, which I know is a delicate one, I want to be very clear, and not misunderstood -- what Steve and others think makes "legal theory" Catholic? I cannot emphasize this enough: I am not suggesting that those in the camp in which Steve places himself are not "real" or "good" Catholics, or that the legal theory of those in that camp could not be accurately characterized as "Catholic." These are not the suggestions. The question is posed sincerely: What is it about a "legal theory" -- anyone's legal theory -- that would make it "Catholic"? One answer is, "it is a legal theory that is consistent with, and proceeds from, foundations in the Church's authoritative teachings." Another might be "it is a legal theory that aims to reflect the truths revealed in the Gospel, as those truths are understood by the particular Catholic, or community of Catholics, proposing the theory." And I'm sure there are others. Thoughts?
Another big (hopeful?) DC event
Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's tragically bad decision in Roe v. Wade. Once again, tens of thousands of people -- mostly young people -- will march peacefully, providing a powerful witness to the sanctity of life. And, once again, the press will pretty much ignore the event and misrepresent its tone and demographics. (Here's the March for Life link. If you are in or near Washington D.C. -- for the inauguration, perhaps -- please consider participating.)
Greg has invited MOJ bloggers to share their hopes regarding ways that Pres. Obama might move the nation's policy's in a direction more in keeping with the Church's social and other teachings. I am going to hope that the President will make serious efforts to rescue his party's education policies from teachers-union and anti-religious-school captivity, and to craft an approach that is more consistent with the Church's clear teachings in this area.
Meanwhile, I read that, among the President's very first actions, during this week of the Roe anniversary, will be to undo the Bush Administration's ban on sending federal dollars to groups that promote and perform abortion abroad.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Churches and Community
This article, in the Washington Post -- about Holy Rosary Church in D.C., and its role in the life of the Italian community there -- is a great read. (I had a long conversation with the author while she was writing it.) It reminds me of subject(s) that has come up from time to time on MOJ (and is also relevant to the "urbanism"-related work of the lovely and talented Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett), namely, (1) what is the role of religious institutions (like churches) in providing the infrastructure for the kind of community in which genuine flourishing can take place, and (2) what is the role of law in sustaining (or undermining) such institutions (and so, by extension, such communities)?
Friday, January 9, 2009
Edward P. Mahoney, R.I.P.
My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy. This was in no small part because of the encouragement and example provided by a wonderful teacher, friend, and priest, Prof. Ed Mahoney, who died yesterday. (See Brian Leiter's notice here, and the nice memorial at the Duke Philosophy Department's webpage here.)
"Father Ed" -- a specialist in later medieval psychology, who did important work on the "Great Chain of Being" -- taught me, and many others, Ancient, Medieval, and late-Medieval Philosophy. He was passionately committed to undergraduate education, and he inspired many of us not only to wrestle with difficult, beautiful texts and ideas, but to better appreciate, in a big-picture way, the medieval vision, mind, and cosmology. He ruthlessly gave me the worst grade I received in college, delivering a much-needed ego-check, and then proceeded to help me learn, and get me fired up to learn, in a deeper way than I ever would have without him. He made me think harder, and write better, than I would have, or could have, without his help. He was my teacher before I knew that he was a Catholic priest, and he later became an advisor, counselor, and mentor.
The news about Fr. Ed made me think -- it reminded me -- of how special a great teacher can be. I'm sure all of us (I hope all of us!) were blessed, at some point, with such a teacher. I'm thankful that I was able to tell him how much he meant to me, and that he was able to see, before he passed away, at least some of the fruits of his efforts in my own career. And I hope I'll remember, in my own teaching, how important it turned out to be, for me, that he took the time and expended the efforts that he did.
More Appreciation for Fr. Richard Neuhaus
There are tributes and testimonials all over the Internet today. Check out, for example, this, over at "the Catholic Thing"; this, at First Thing; this, by Ross Douthat; this, by John Podhoretz, etc. Here, thanks to First Things, is an essay by Fr. Neuhaus, from a few years ago, called "We Are Born to Die." And, a few outlets have also posted this very moving passage from Fr. Neuhaus's own "Death in the Afternoon":
When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of "justification by faith alone," although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways—these and all other gifts I have received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.
I hope that, in the coming days, many of us will share reflections on the relationship -- I think, the centrality -- of Neuhaus's work and core claims to our "Catholic legal theory" project. Obviously, some of us disagree with some of Fr. Neuhaus's views on policy and other matters. I would think, though, that we would all agree that his critique of the "naked public square", and his emphasis on the freedom-and-flourishing-enhancing functions of mediating institutions, were, are, and will remain hugely important, and valuable. More to come, I hope . . . For now, God bless him.
Monday, January 5, 2009
MOJ Fifth Anniversary approaches . . .
On February 3, it will have been five years since the launch of this blog. (Here's Mark Sargent's opening post.) We are very grateful to our many thousands of readers, both regular and sporadic, and correspondents. MOJ is not Instapundit or Althouse . . . but it's doing pretty well.
Two quick requests (of readers and bloggers): First, tell your friends (real and Facebook) about Mirror of Justice. Next, drop a line to one (or more) of us, and share your thoughts about our enterprise, what it has (or has not) achieved, and what it should (and should not) be doing and addressing. You might, for example, take a look at Mark's initial post, and see if you think we've measured up, and how we might have fallen short.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Markets, morals, and moralizing
Here's an interesting and provocative op-ed, by "Spengler" (Asia Times), about Pope Benedict's expressed views, over the last 25 years, on morality and economics:
Here is what then Cardinal Ratzinger said about it more than 20 years ago:
It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse. An economic policy that is ordered not only to the good of the group - indeed, not only to the common good of a determinate state - but to the common good of the family of man demands a maximum of ethical discipline and thus a maximum of religious strength.
What caused the laws of the market to collapse in 2008? In another location (see The monster and the sausages, Asia Times Online, May 20, 2008), I argued that the bulge of workers in the US and Europe approaching retirement age is the ultimate cause of the financial crisis. Too much capital chased too few investment opportunities, and the financial industry met the demand by selling sow's ears with the credit rating of silk purposes.
Underlying the crisis is the Western world's repudiation of life, through a hedonism that puts consumption or "self-realization" ahead of child-rearing. The developed world is shifting from a demographic profile in which the very young (children four years and under) outnumbered the elderly (65 and older), to a profile with 10 times as many retirees as children aged four or younger. Economics simply never has had to confront a situation in which the next generation simply failed turn up. . . .
The future pope made two parallel points: first, that morality cannot be effective without competent economics, and secondly, that economics cannot dispense with morality by trusting to the supposedly automatic workings of the marketplace:
A morality that believes itself able to dispense with the technical knowledge of economic laws is not morality but moralizing. As such it is the antithesis of morality. A scientific approach that believes itself capable of managing without an ethos misunderstands the reality of man. Therefore it is not scientific. Today we need a maximum of specialized economic understanding, but also a maximum of ethos so that specialized economic understanding may enter the service of the right goals. Only in this way will its knowledge be both politically practicable and socially tolerable.
A clearer way to make these distinctions, perhaps, is to observe that the market mechanism has a negative but not a positive function. The market cannot decide what innovations or practices are beneficial to society. It can only punish incompetence and inefficiency. "Creative destruction", in the famous phrase of the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, refers to Goethe's Mephistopheles, who tries to do evil but ends up doing good instead. Without the devilish work of destruction that kills off incompetence, established monopolies would choke off innovation.
Nothing in the market mechanism, however, can distinguish between pornography and art, medicine and recreational drugs, development and suburban sprawl, or, for that matter, family formation and addictive consumption.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
"God challenges us and our freedom"
Here is Pope Benedict XVI's "urbi et orbi" Christmas address. A bit:
. . . In the millennium just past, and especially in the last centuries, immense progress was made in the areas of technology and science. Today we can dispose of vast material resources. But the men and women in our technological age risk becoming victims of their own intellectual and technical achievements, ending up in spiritual barrenness and emptiness of heart. That is why it is so important for us to open our minds and hearts to the Birth of Christ, this event of salvation which can give new hope to the life of each human being.
Wake up, O man! For your sake God became man" (St. Augustine, "Sermo," 185). Wake up, O men and women of the third millennium! At Christmas, the Almighty becomes a child and asks for our help and protection. His way of showing that he is God challenges our way of being human. By knocking at our door, he challenges us and our freedom; he calls us to examine how we understand and live our lives.
The modern age is often seen as an awakening of reason from its slumbers, humanity's enlightenment after an age of darkness. Yet without the light of Christ, the light of reason is not sufficient to enlighten humanity and the world. For this reason, the words of the Christmas Gospel: "the true Light that enlightens every man was coming into this world" (John 1:9) resound now more than ever as a proclamation of salvation. "It is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear" ("Gaudium et Spes," No. 22).
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
