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.

Monday, May 14, 2007

"I'd deny Communion to Rudy"

"Says priest."

The priest of the Manhattan church where Rudy Giuliani had his second wedding says he would deny the presidential contender Holy Communion because of his public support for abortion.

"Because he publicly is against church teaching, the answer would be no" if Giuliani requested the sacrament, said Msgr. Thomas Modugno. . . .

Betty O'Connor, 76, of Florham Park, N.J., said abortion is too difficult for her to accept. "I love Giuliani, but that's what's holding me back on him," she said. "I don't like to see all those little babies die."

But Cornelius Stapleton, 60, a parishioner at Our Lady Queen Mary's Catholic Church in Forest Hills, Queens, was squarely behind the mayor.

"I don't support abortion but I'd vote for Giuliani tomorrow morning - twice or three times, if I could," he said.

"Pluralism, Politics, and God"

This conference, "Pluralism, Politics, and God?  An International Symposium on Religion and Public Reason", looks interesting.  It's going to be at McGill University's Newman Center ("Centre") in September.  Here's the blurb:

In his controversial Regensburg lecture, Pope Benedict XVI sought to re-frame the interaction of religious traditions on the principle that ‘not to act reasonably is contrary to the nature of God’.  He also called on the universities, and on all partners in the dialogue of cultures, to rediscover this principle by engaging ‘the whole breadth of reason’ – appreciating its grandeur and repudiating reductionist approaches to reason.

This unabashedly hellenistic emphasis raises important questions about the relation between faith and reason, and about the role of religion in the exercise of public reason.  Is religion necessary to sustain reason? Do different religions represent competing claims about reason and rationality as well as about revelation?  Does religious diversity mean that public decision-making, even as regards moral or ethical matters or human rights, should seek to bracket the God-question?  Or is that not possible without undermining the rational basis for deciding and acting?

Scholars from across North America and Europe will gather at McGill University to consider such questions, with presentations on a variety of related issues from Nicholas Adams (Edinburgh), Gregory Baum (McGill), Mark Cladis (Brown), Michael Ignatieff (formerly Harvard), George Smith II (Columbus School of Law), Janice Stein (Toronto), John Witte Jr. (Emory), and many others.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

"Tolera[nce]"

With respect to Michael's friendly suggestion that I "get with it" -- First, I wish I were authentically old-school enough to smoke a pipe!  Then I could kick back, sport fraying tweed, drink Old Fashioneds, and complain about modernity full time.  =-)

Second, it says a lot about politics, and about the New York Times, that we are told by the Times, "Giuliani said that Republicans needed to tolerate dissenting views on abortion rights, gun control and gay rights if they wanted to retain the White House."  "Tolerate" means, apparently, "roll over entirely and abandon long-standing, winning positions in order to better align one's views with the editorial staff of the New York Times."

As someone who has not yet been able to kick the habit of watching the two parties' conventions, it strikes me that the GOP "tolerate[s] dissenting views" on these matters obsessively, and with a vengeance.  (Remember Arnold and Rudy in 2004?)  The Democrats, on the other hand . . . not so much.  I'm waiting for a Democratic presidential candidate to lecture his or her party's base -- with the Times' approval -- on the need to "tolerate dissenting" pro-life views, i.e., to nominate a strongly pro-life candidate.  . . .   I'm still waiting . . . .

Friday, May 11, 2007

President Bush's speech at St. Vincent college

President Bush delivered the commencement address at St. Vincent college (a Benedictine school) today.  Here is a link.  And, here are some excerpts:

At the heart of [this school's] high ideals is the name Benedict. Benedict was the saint who set down a practical guide for community life -- and helped save Western civilization. Benedict was the inspiration for the man who came to this country to plant these ideals in American soil -- and founded this college. And Benedict was also the inspiration for the Pope, who took his name in tribute to the Benedictine ideals of charity and community that he believes the world needs now more than ever.

These ideals of charity and community have a special resonance for Americans. From the beginning, America has offered the world a new model for strong community life. In the early 19th century, a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States. He was impressed by the way Americans came together in voluntary associations to help out a neighbor in need. And in his book, "Democracy in America," he wrote something that captured the spirit of this great country. He said, "When an American asks for the co-operation of his fellow citizens, it is seldom refused . If some great and sudden calamity befalls a family, the purses of a thousand strangers are at once willingly opened." . . .

There are many ways to serve our nation. Across this great land of opportunity we have citizens with great needs. And for every need, there is a path to service.

Some of you have chosen the path of teaching. We all know a teacher who has made a difference in our lives. In my case, I married her. (Laughter.) The First Lady showed me that teaching is more than a job or profession -- it is a vocation. When you make the decision to become a teacher, you know that your reward will be greater than money. It will happen in wonderful moments when you see a student grasp a difficult concept, or come alive during the reading of a poem, or discover how a work of history speaks to our time. To do this for even one child is special. To do this for hundreds of children over a career will bring you a satisfaction that few other professions can match. . . .

Even if you can't devote yourself to a career of service, you can make a life of service. We have that on good authority from one of President Towey's great heroes: Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa's whole life was dedicated to doing small things with great love. I'm pleased that Jim is taking a group of you to Calcutta later this month. I hope it helps inspire a new generation to carry on her good works. In almost every documentary about Mother Teresa, you see her going to the side of someone who is suffering terribly -- often about to die. She treats them with great gentleness, squeezing their hands, and whispering words of comfort. Their look of wonder tells you that these are people who may be feeling loved for the first time in their lives. As they look up at Mother Teresa, their eyes say: Here's someone who cares. . . .

You can know this joy in your own lives. All you need is a warm heart and a willing pair of hands. When Mother Teresa accepted her Nobel Prize, she told the story about visiting a nursing home. At first she was impressed by the home because it was attractive and well equipped. But she soon noticed that none of the residents were smiling, all were looking at the door. When she asked why everyone seemed so sad, one of the caretakers explained: "They are hurt because they are forgotten." They stared at the door in the hope that it would open and someone who loved them would walk through it.

My challenge to you today is this: Be the person who walks through that door. Be the face that brings a smile to the hurt and forgotten. Lead lives of purpose and character -- make a difference in someone else's life. And if you do, you will lead richer lives, you will build a more hopeful nation, and you'll never be disappointed.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

"Provid[ing] Cover"

I share Rob's admiration for Kahan's "Cognitively Liberal State" paper and agree with him that "a persistent call to sacrifice in order to alleviate some of the suffering of the poor is not . . . the same as a periodic stick in the eye of those who want to use the government to help the poor" and also that we all "let ourselves off much too easily in terms of what the Gospel calls us to do."  And, as he would probably guess, I tend to agree with more -- but not that much more -- of what I read in First Things than what I read in Commonweal (which I admire and to which I have been honored to contribute).

Rob also writes:  "CST is broad enough that it can provide cover for directions in which we were already headed, and our magazines reflect that."  This seems at least kind of true, and yet troubling.  What do others think?  I hope that there is something more going on, i.e., that the "conservative" themes and implications of CST shape the paths and challenge the plans of those headed in one political direction while the "liberal" themes do the same for those headed in the other direction.  It's not just that First Things and Commonweal -- and their readers -- are exactly where and what they would have been, absent the challenge of CST . . . is it?

Not-quite-so-glassy

Rob is right, certainly, that "cherry picking" of the Catholic Social Tradition is a temptation for those on the right and the left alike.  It strike me, though -- I've been a subscriber for about 11 years -- that First Things magazine's house is not as made-of-glass (there is a word for being made-of-glass, right?  what is it?) as Rob's post suggests. 

Surely, the magazine has -- many, many times -- addressed questions relating to the justice of the economic order and social-welfare policy, in a way that is informed by the various authors' understanding of the Tradition.  On the other hand, my impression -- which could be wrong, of course -- is that (as Novak suggests) the claim that the Tradition *necessarily* and *at its heart* speaks to the inviolable dignity of the human person (and, therefore, to abortion, embryo-destroying research, and euthanasia) encounters more resistance "on Catholic campuses" than would, in the First Things editorial offices, the claim that the Tradition poses strong challenges to our consumerist economic order or to libertarian social-welfare policies.

That said, I assume that we can all agree that the cherry-picking temptation is one to be resisted (and is hard, sometimes, to resist!).

A great event at Princeton on "The Free Society"

Princeton's James Madison Program (which is directed by Robby George) is hosting what looks to be an outstanding conference, "The Free Society:  Foundations and Challenges," on May 14-15.  More information is here.  And, here is the blurb:

Freedom is the unifying theme of modern civilization. For the last two centuries, almost all important movements of thought and action in the nations of the developed west have looked to freedom as their aim and justification. Today, the aspiration to freedom seems to dominate political discourse in all corners of the world. Nevertheless, freedom is not simply a creed but also a question. For many disputes persist concerning the character of a truly free society, the conditions that allow freedom to flourish, and the challenges that free societies must confront. Moreover, the very progress of human freedom tends to raise questions about its compatibility with other cherished principles such as equality, virtue, community, and tradition.

The conference addresses some of the questions that arise in connection with the quest for freedom. Scholars in the social sciences and humanities will address a variety of issues including:

What is the relationship between liberal education and the free society?

How is freedom to be reconciled with and supported by the discipline imposed by the rule of law?

Does a capitalist economy foster a society that is just as well as free?

How can freedom be preserved when a society is under threat of terrorist attack?

How does the aspiration to freedom appear in light of claims of divine revelation?

What historical conditions are necessary for free societies to emerge?

InterVarsity back at Georgetown

Not long ago, Georgetown University was on the receiving end of some (mostly critical) attention, here at MOJ and elsewhere (here, here, and here, for example) after the school's campus-ministry office kicked the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship off campus.  Well, InterVarsity is back.

Pluralism, Dialogue, and Freedom

Here's a link to a forthcoming paper of mine -- part of a Journal of Law and Religion volume dedicated to the work of my colleague, Bob Rodes -- called "Pluralism, Dialogue, and Freedom:  Professor Robert Rodes and the Church-State Nexus."  The abstract:

The idea of church-state “separation” and the image of a “wall” are at the heart of nearly every citizen's and commentator's thinking about law and religion, and about faith and public life. Unfortunately, the inapt image often causes great confusion about the important idea. What should be regarded as an important feature of religious freedom under constitutionally limited government too often serves simply as a slogan, and is too often employed as a rallying cry, not for the distinctiveness and independence of religious institutions, but for the marginalization and privatization of religious faith.

How, then, should we understand church-state “separation”? What is the connection between separation, well understood, and religious freedom? What is the place, or role, of religious faith, believers, and institutions in the political community governed by our Constitution? With respect to these and so many other interesting and important questions, the work of Professor Robert Rodes has been and remains a help, a challenge, and an inspiration.

This essay is an appreciation, interpretation, and application of Professor Rodes's church-state work. In particular, it contrasts the church-state “nexus” that he has explored and explained with Jefferson's misleading but influential “wall” metaphor. After identifying and discussing a few of the more salient features of this “nexus,” it closes with some thoughts about how the leading themes in Rodes's law-and-religion writing can help us better understand and negotiate one of today's most pressing religious freedom problems.

Thoughts and comments welcome!

Abortion juxtaposition

In the coffee shop this morning, I was struck by the below-the-fold "here's what's inside" box on the front page of the New York Times.  Right next to each other were the two abortion-related stories, which have already been mentioned, i.e., the report on the Pope's "remarks against abortion" and the one on Giuliani's (obviously poll-tested) decision to go ahead and "support abortion rights."  I was also struck by this observation, at the end of the Giuliani piece, from Rich Lowry of National Review:

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the conservative magazine, said, “You can’t win as a pro-choicer who is going to deliberately set on challenging the party’s orthodoxy on the issue.”

“It doesn’t have to take him down,” Mr. Lowry said of Mr. Giuliani and the abortion issue, “but if he continues to mishandle it, it’s going to be a real problem for him. One of the big ironies for him is he doesn’t care about abortion.”

I wonder what that means, i.e., "he doesn't care about abortion"?  Doesn't care?