A powerful piece, at First Things, from Prof. Charles Camosy on the very disturbing case in the U.K. Here's a bit:
. . . Let us not mince words. As with Charlie Gard before him, Alfie Evans’s death is being aimed by the very people whose vocation it is to help and protect him. The difference in Alfie’s case is that, because he has continued to breathe, the pretense of “removal of burdensome treatment” is patently absurd. In a situation that was no doubt distressing to those who hoped he would die, Alfie’s continuing to breathe has clarified the true object of the act of removing his ventilator.
Of course, as with Charlie before him, we had more than enough evidence to make such a judgment, even before Alfie was extubated. The primary judge who refused to allow Alfie to travel to Italy was concerned with Alfie’s brain damage, not with the burden of treatment. Alfie’s disability is likely to be profound, and thus, according to the judge, it is in Alfie’s best interests to die. . . .
Pope Francis has admirably been on the side of both Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. The broader Catholic hierarchy, the UK bishops, and the men around Francis, however, seem cold and complacent, deferring to a medical and legal establishment that refers to the application of Catholic moral theology to these cases as “ridiculous emotive nonsense.”
Perhaps those who are not infected with the ableism of the developed secular West are in a better position to respond to such a charge. The Brazilian bishops, interestingly, have put out a video insisting that the UK government has a duty to use its resources to support those who most need it, and that Alfie’s life must be protected.
Indeed. Enough with the deference to the medical and legal establishment and its judgements about which lives are worth living. Now is a time for choosing. The most vulnerable require our clear and uncompromising support.
It must be underscored: It is not just that resources are scarce and that, in this case, it seems they are not being allocated justly. It's that the authorities are refusing to allow the child's parents to care for him someplace else, via means that will cost the U.K. nothing. It is not an exaggeration to call this a kidnapping.
A powerful piece, at First Things, from Prof. Charles Camosy on the very disturbing case in the U.K. Here's a bit:
. . . Let us not mince words. As with Charlie Gard before him, Alfie Evans’s death is being aimed by the very people whose vocation it is to help and protect him. The difference in Alfie’s case is that, because he has continued to breathe, the pretense of “removal of burdensome treatment” is patently absurd. In a situation that was no doubt distressing to those who hoped he would die, Alfie’s continuing to breathe has clarified the true object of the act of removing his ventilator.
Of course, as with Charlie before him, we had more than enough evidence to make such a judgment, even before Alfie was extubated. The primary judge who refused to allow Alfie to travel to Italy was concerned with Alfie’s brain damage, not with the burden of treatment. Alfie’s disability is likely to be profound, and thus, according to the judge, it is in Alfie’s best interests to die. . . .
Pope Francis has admirably been on the side of both Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. The broader Catholic hierarchy, the UK bishops, and the men around Francis, however, seem cold and complacent, deferring to a medical and legal establishment that refers to the application of Catholic moral theology to these cases as “ridiculous emotive nonsense.”
Perhaps those who are not infected with the ableism of the developed secular West are in a better position to respond to such a charge. The Brazilian bishops, interestingly, have put out a video insisting that the UK government has a duty to use its resources to support those who most need it, and that Alfie’s life must be protected.
Indeed. Enough with the deference to the medical and legal establishment and its judgements about which lives are worth living. Now is a time for choosing. The most vulnerable require our clear and uncompromising support.
It must be underscored: It is not just that resources are scarce and that, in this case, it seems they are not being allocated justly. It's that the authorities are refusing to allow the child's parents to care for him someplace else, via means that will cost the U.K. nothing. It is not an exaggeration to call this a kidnapping.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Last Spring, the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School (more here) hosted a small roundtable conference dedicated to Kathleen Brady's then-new book, The Distinctiveness of Religion in American Law: Rethinking Religion Clause Jurisprudence. Each participant (including MOJers Michael Moreland, Michael Perry, Marc DeGirolami, and Tom Berg, and several others) wrote a short reflection on the book -- a kind of "admission ticket" -- and these reflections formed the basis for the day's conversations. I'm pleased to report that the "tickets" have been collected in the November 2017 issue of the Journal of Law and Religion. They are, if I say so myself, really good. Take a look!
Monday, April 23, 2018
Story here. A "religious freedom" that does not include the freedom to take one's children to Mass, and form them in the faith, and prepare them for the sacraments, is not (in any meaningful sense) "religious freedom." I realize that it is not possible for western democracies and business-enterprises to disentangle from engagement and even cooperation with China, but I do wish there were reasons for thinking that this engagement and cooperation were animated and shaped by just a bit more attention to, and a bit less naivete and head-in-sanding about, this (the word is not too strong) tyrannical aspect of the PRC regime.
Friday, April 20, 2018
From America, an essay by Fr. Aaron Pidel (Marquette / Ph.D. Notre Dame), called "Did Benedict Predict the Rise of Trump and Fake News?" A bit:
More than 13 years ago, in a homily given at the conclave that would later elect him Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke of a growing “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” The urgent call for a return to truth-based religion, far from repelling the cardinals, distinguished Ratzinger as the frontrunner for papal office.
Ratzinger’s papal platform did not prove broadly appealing. The secular pundits of the last decade often ignored his warning as the scare tactic of a dogmatist unable to adjust to the benign pluralism of a world that had, in keeping with Kant’s rallying cry, “dared to think.” I doubt the pope emeritus has much energy nowadays to follow the many instructive ironies of the Trump era; but if he did, he might take just the tiniest bit of satisfaction in seeing not just the religious right but also the secular left denouncing a growing “dictatorship of relativism.” Ratzinger’s distinctive emphasis on freedom’s need for truth, in other words, may have come not too late but too early to find a bipartisan hearing in the United States. . . .
[T]he fundamental reality to which Americans, both right- and left-leaning, must return is that of being God’s creatures. Only when we accept the shape of human existence as something given by God, to be discovered collaboratively rather than defined privately, can we resist the encircling dictatorship of relativism.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
At Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, there is this review, by M.T. Lu (St. Thomas - MN) of this book. MOJ readers might also be interested Prof. Kaczor's earlier monograph on the subject, The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice.
Monday, April 16, 2018
Michael Cassidy (Boston College) has posted his paper, "Catholic Social Thought and Criminal Justice Reform." Here is the abstract:
Professor Cassidy examines the criminal justice reform movement in the United States through the lens of Catholic social thought. In particular, he focuses on God’s gift of redemption and the Gospels’ directives that we love one another and show mercy toward the poor, the oppressed and the imprisoned. Cassidy then examines the implications of these fundamental Catholic teachings for the modern debate about the death penalty, sentencing reform, prisoner reentry and parole.
Check it out!
