Some thoughts on evangelism, ecumenism, etc., from a writer in the Jerusalem Post. For me, this piece was timely, given my participation last Monday in the event at St. Thomas on "Conversions and Conflicts".
Sunday, April 13, 2008
"Let the Pope be the Pope!"
What do we tell students about practicing "corporate" law?
An interesting discussion, here (Bainbridge) and here (Concurring Opinions) about the messages we (i.e., law teachers) send to our students about practicing corporate law, and serving the common good. Objecting to the tendency to equate serving the public interest with "public-interest law", Bainbridge writes:
. . . You want to help make society a better place? You want to eliminate poverty? Become a corporate lawyer. Help businesses grow, so that they can create jobs and provide goods and services that make people’s lives better.
A corporate lawyer not only serves the public interest by helping to create new wealth, we also help defend an important social institution from statism. . . . Those whose livelihood depends on corporate enterprise cannot be neutral about political systems. Only democratic capitalist societies permit voluntary formation of private corporations and allot them a sphere of economic liberty within which to function, which gives those who value such enterprises a powerful incentive to resist both statism and socialism. Because tyranny is far more likely to come from the public sector than the private, those who for selfish reasons strive to maintain both a democratic capitalist society and, of particular relevance to the present argument, a substantial sphere of economic liberty therein serve the public interest. . . .
It’s time corporate lawyers stopped letting people like Chemerinsky make us feel guilty about our career choices.
Dave Hoffman (at Concurring Opinions) adds:
The big idea to agree with here is that it is a terrible fact that law deans, and law professors, continually push out the message that corporate lawyering is a less moral & desirable career path than "public interest" lawyering. The reason isn't that it makes students feel guilty (though it does) but that those students, when in practice, are probably less likely to be ethical because they've been told they've "sold out."
In my own Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure courses, I try to press a similar point, i.e., that one can probably do more for the poor and disadvantage, and more to protect the vulnerable, and more to safeguard justice, richly understood, as a conscientious prosecutor than as a criminal-defense attorney. What do others think?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Redemption!
A short clip, of Bill Buckner throwing out the first pitch, recording redemption-in-action. This might be particularly challenging for Boston Red Sox fans.
Can There Really Be "Free Speech" in Public Schools?
I suggest, in this contribution to a just-published symposium on the Supreme Court's recent Morse decision (i.e., the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case), that the answer is "no":
The Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick leaves unresolved many interesting and difficult problems about the authority of public-school officials to regulate public-school students' speech. Perhaps the most intriguing question posed by the litigation, decision, and opinions in Morse is one that the various Justices who wrote in the case never squarely addressed: What is the basic educational mission of public schools, and what are the implications of this mission for officials' authority and students' free-speech rights? Given what we have come to think the Free Speech Clause means, and considering the values it is thought to enshrine and the dangers against which it is thought to protect, is it really possible for the freedom of speech to co-exist with the mission of the public schools? We all recall Justice Jackson's stirring rhetoric in the West Virginia flag-salute case: If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, he proclaimed, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion[.] But, is this really true - could it be true? - in public schools?
Thoughts?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
CL Statement on the (Italian) Election
Here is a link to a statement issued by Communion and Liberation, called "What is dearest to us", regarding the 2008 elections in Italy. A bit:
2) We do not ask for salvation from politics. We cannot expect politics to do this either for us or for others.
The tradition of the Church has always indicated two ideal criteria for judging every civil authority and every political platform:a) libertas Ecclesiae. A power that respects the freedom of a phenomenon so sui generis as the Church is for that very reason tolerant towards every other form of authentic human aggregation. The recognition of the role of faith, including its public role, and the contribution it can make to man’s journey is, therefore, a guarantee of freedom for all, not only for Christians.
Yes!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
"Pro-Life Doctor": An Oxymoron?
Chris Kaczor has a disturbing post over at First Things:
In November 2007, the Committee on Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published Committee Opinion # 385 entitled, “The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine.” The committee opinion sought to “maximize accommodation of an individual’s religious or moral beliefs while avoiding imposition of these beliefs on others or interfering with the safe, timely, and financially feasible access to reproductive health care that all women deserve.”
Unfortunately, the balance struck by the committee between the right of conscience of physicians and the reproductive health care of women so emphasizes patient autonomy that it turns physicians into medical automatons forced to act against their best ethical and medical judgment. As pointed out on March 14, 2008, by Health and Human Services secretary Mike Leavitt: “The ACOG ethics report would force physicians to violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification.” Put simply, committee Opinion 385 could be the end of the pro-life doctor.
There's more. Rob? What do you think? Much of the post is a discussion of the appropriate understanding of "conscience."
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Santo Subito
Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005. Santo subito.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Cardinal Dulles's final McGinley Lecture
Avery Cardinal Dulles is, of course, a giant. Here's a story about his final McGinley Lecture at Fordham. Were any MOJ-folks there? Any reports? Here's a taste:
In his lectures, which have always been well attended, the cardinal has defended Catholic orthodoxy and explored oft-debated topics.
He said his principal aim in his lectures was "to present and classify the existing opinions" and "to criticize views that are inadequate."
He always tried "to incorporate the valid insights of all parties to the discussion, rather than perpetuate a one-sided view that is partial and incomplete," he said.
"I think of myself as a moderate trying to make peace between (opposing) schools of thought. While doing so, however, I insist on logical consistency. Unlike certain relativists of our time, I abhor mixtures of contradiction," Cardinal Dulles said. . . ."Western thought," he said, "followed in the path of cognitive realism for many centuries before the revival of agnosticism in the Renaissance." The cardinal repeated Pope John Paul II's admonition that philosophy should seek to "resume its original quest for eternal truth and wisdom."
"Science, we all know, does not rest on a treasury of revealed knowledge handed down in authoritative tradition," the cardinal said. "Science has wonderfully increased our powers to make and to destroy, but it does not tell us what we ought to do and why.
"It does not tell us where the universe came from, or why we exist, or what our final destination is. And yet some scientists speak as though their discipline were the only kind of valid knowledge," he said. . . ."The most important thing about my career, and many of yours, I feel sure, is the discovery of the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in the field -- the Lord Jesus himself," he said. . . .
MLK R.I.P
Today is the 40th Anniversary of the King assassination. Here is his last speech ("I just want to do God's will . . . .").
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
