This year, the University of Notre Dame's Laetare Medal will be awarded to actor-activist Martin Sheen. (Story here.) Here is the statement of Notre Dame's President, Fr. John Jenkins:
"As one of our nation's most recognizable and accomplished screen actors, Martin Sheen has achieved a level of celebrity that few Americans enjoy," said the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president. "He has used that celebrity to draw the attention of his fellow citizens to issues that cry out for redress, such as the plight of immigrant workers and homeless people, the waging of unjust war, the killing of the unborn and capital punishment. We welcome the opportunity to lift up his example for our church, our country, and our students."
Here is what Mr. Sheen had to say about abortion in an interview with The Progressive:
Q: What are your views on abortion?
Sheen: I cannot make a choice for a women, particularly a black or brown or poor pregnant woman. I would not make a judgment in the case. As a father and a grandfather, I have had experience with children who don't always come when they are planned, and I have experienced the great joy of God's presence in my children, so I'm inclined to be against abortion of any life. But I am equally against the death penalty or war-- anywhere people are sacrificed for some end justifying a means. I don't think abortion is a good idea. I personally am opposed to abortion, but I will not judge anybody else's right in that regard because I am not a woman and I could never face the actual reality of it.
Sigh.
UPDATE: As (more than) a few gimlet-eyed MOJ readers have noted -- some, it seems, with the relish that comes with spotting others' typos -- the Laetare Award is going to Martin "Apocalypse Now" Sheen, not Charlie "Hot Shots! Part Deux" Sheen. My bad.
More UPDATE: I did not intend to (and so, did not) -- as one commenter at the Vox Nova blog put it -- "decry" the recognition of Sheen, whom I admire. What I "sigh[ed]" about was the fact -- and it is a fact -- that someone who comes so close to being an interestingly consistent and therefore provocative witness to the Gospel of Life dropped the ball, at the end of the day, with the "personally opposed but . . . " position. Sheen's failure here -- to take a position that would actually cost him, in the world he inhabits -- is a missed opportunity. It does not surprise me that Notre Dame is going to honor him -- there are many good reasons to honor him -- but it does disappoint me that Sheen (who is not, after all, running for office or seeking a seat on the Supreme Court) is unable, or unwilling, to actually say what's what on the issue.
Finally, my Vox Nova colleague Morning's Minion wrote, in the comments section at that blog, something along the lines of "well, Sheen's no different than John Roberts, who is actually in a position to do something about abortion." Actually, it is not at all obvious to me that John Roberts -- whose job, of course, is to decide legal cases -- is in a better position to change hearts, minds, and practices on abortion. And, in any event, to observe, as Roberts did, that Roe is the law of the land is not to do what Mr. Sheen did, i.e., to contend that the abortion is not a wrong of the kind the law should prevent or discourage.
I hope that MOJ readers (and others) who read Matthew Boudway's open letter to Deal Hudson (to which Michael linked, here) will also read Ramesh Ponnuru's recent piece, "Conscientious Voting," here. A taste:
Feuerherd asks, “[I]s it fair for a Catholic like me to suspect that the liberal economic policies of the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will result in less dire poverty and thus perhaps fewer abortions? And isn't that supposed to be the goal?” Anyone who wants to cast a ballot on this assumption has a moral obligation to investigate whether it is, in fact, true that 1) Democratic policies would reduce poverty much more than Republican ones would and 2) that abortion and poverty rates correlate in as straightforward a manner as Feuerherd idly (and conveniently) supposes. I am not aware of research that corroborates point two, let alone both of them taken together.
And there is another problem with this argument, which is that a reduction in the number of abortions is not the only goal that pro-lifers should have. Also important is that the law stop treating unborn children as subhuman creatures who may legitimately be denied the protections of the law against unjust killing. Obama himself may be perfectly sincere in willing that fewer women exercise the (supposed) right to abortion even while he supports keeping that option legal and making it subsidized. I have no reason to doubt that he is. But he also wills that unborn children be denied the basic legal protection from homicide that you and I enjoy. The Catholic Church wants voters to take that injustice seriously; more seriously than Feuerherd seems inclined to take it. But of course it cannot (and has no ambition to) force any voter to do anything.
From the First Things blog, this by Ryan Anderson:
Benedict XVI recently asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to turn its attention to the ethical challenges that new biotechnologies pose. Aware that the Church “cannot and should not intervene on every scientific innovation,” the pope charged the congregation with “reiterating the great values at stake, and providing the faithful, and all men and women of good will, with ethical and moral principles and guidelines for these new and important questions.”
To help direct the congregation’s reflection, he offered two principles: “(a) unconditional respect for the human being as a person from conception to natural death; (b) respect for the originality of the transmission of human life through the acts proper to spouses.”
. . .
The Western tradition of moral reflection has produced a long line of reasoning about the fundamental worth of people and the immorality of direct killing. Battles over civil and human rights at home and abroad have taken up and developed the historical arguments about human dignity and equality. We have developed traditions of rationality about these questions—competing traditions, no doubt, but traditions of thought on these topics all the same.
So when debates about embryo freezing, manipulation, or killing arise, moral philosophers and theologians have rich resources for identifying the wrongs involved. It’s easy to speak to the public about all this. Start with the science that shows the humanity and individuality of the embryo, and then make philosophical arguments about the equality of all human beings as persons possessing inherent dignity. Finally, add the well-developed moral and legal prohibitions on directly killing innocent persons and you quickly arrive at the conclusion that killing human embryos is wrong.
In other words, religiously grounded thinkers make arguments about killing. They don’t simply pronounce, “God says it’s wrong.” As Benedict charged the CDF, they use arguments that can guide both the faithful “and all men and women of good will.”
With assisted reproductive technologies, things are different. . . .
MOJ readers (and other sentient bipeds) will be familiar with the work of Professors Stuntz and Skeel. Well, they have a blog, "Less than the Least." Many of us here have had provocative and challenging conversations, and disagreements, with Stuntz and Skeel, but I feel comfortable expressing -- using the royal "we" -- "our" deep admiration for them and their work.
On a more somber note, as Prof. Stuntz reports here, he is struggling with colon cancer. Oremus.
When I was young -- about 15 or so, I think -- my mother took me to an event, in Anchorage, Alaska (where I lived), at which William F. Buckley was the speaker. (I think it was a Rotary-type civic organization's meeting.) After the talk, during the Q & A, an elderly woman asked him (something like), "Mr. Buckley, most conservatives are gloomy and pessimistic. But you seem happy and hopeful. Why?"
"Because," he said, "I know that my Redeemer lives." That was it. Perfect.
A few days ago, Michael suggested the indefensibility of certain Bush Administration policies relating to mercury pollution. Just to make him feel a bit better about our Commander-in-Chief, I'm linking to this article, in which musician / activist Bob Geldof has nice words for President Bush's efforts with regard to poverty, disease, and development in Africa.
Seriously, I expect that similar efforts will be Bush's focus as ex-President. And, that seems to me a commendable and worthy way to spend an ex-presidency.
Uber-law-blogger Paul Caron has posted a ranking of law-prof blogs. MOJ's loyal readers might have been perturbed to notice our absence from the "top 30." Fear not. As Prof. Caron noted, we were omitted from the stats because we did not (we do now!) have a public site-meter. And, for what it's worth, I am informed by our tech-meisters that, in 2007, MOJ had 379,191 "page views" (up from 278,700 in 2006). We are, at present, on pace to exceed this total in 2008. And, these stats put us at No. 20 (right below the U of Chicago Law Faculty blog).
It also means that we get almost half-of-one-percent of the number of page views enjoyed by Instapundit. So, here's our goal: "One percent in 2008!"
I appreciate Michael's link to Prof. Buzbee's recent paper on pre-emption, and regulatory floors and ceilings. As Michael says, Prof. Buzbee is an expert in the relevant areas, and so his work would be quite useful to anyone trying to decide whether the the Bush Administration's federal-ceiling efforts comply with the relevant law or are good policy. And it would, it seems to me, be a good thing -- as a general matter, anyway -- if federal regulations in a wide range of areas were more consistent with this observation of Prof. Buzbee's:
Unitary federal choice preemption is an institutional arrangement that threatens to produce poorly tailored regulation and public choice distortions of the political process, whether it is before the legislature or a federal agency. Floor preemption, in contrast, constitutes a partial displacement of state choice in setting a minimum level of protection, but leaves room for other actors and additional regulatory action. Floors anticipate and benefit from the institutional diversity they permit.
That said, it does not appear -- from my quick first glance, anyway -- that Prof. Buzbee is arguing that cap-and-trade regimes are "scheme[s]" that would "let some plants evade cleaning up their pollution" or that to support such regimes amounts to promoting the "the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health". So, Michael . . . what about cap-and-trade regimes as a way of controlling and reducing pollution?
