I learned over the weekend about the death of the founding dean of the Ave Maria School of Law, Bernard Dobranski. Here is the notice from Ave Maria. May God bless him and his family. R.I.P.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Dean Bernard Dobranski, R.I.P.
Paul Ryan's challenge
I came across this piece ("Ryan issues challenge to new generation") in America, and thought it was worth sharing. A bit:
Commenting on the woeful state of national political culture, House Speaker Paul Ryan tried to revive the perhaps flagging idealism of American young people in an address to a bipartisan group of House interns—one that may have also been intended for the ears of exasperated members of his own party. As many in the youthful crowd no doubt struggled to remember or even comprehend the era of bipartisan civility Ryan described, the Speaker assured them it could one day return, and acknowledged that his own deportment in the recent past may not have been exemplary. . .
. . . "I’m certainly not going to stand here and tell you I have always met this standard,” he added. “There was a time when I would talk about a difference between ‘makers’ and ‘takers’ in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong. . . ."
Monday, March 21, 2016
Mirror of Justice, Twelve Years On
I suppose it's possible, dear readers, that it slipped past your notice that Mirror of Justice marked its 12th (!) blog-versary a few weeks ago. The first "Welcome" post, from Mark Sargent, went up on Feb. 3, 2004. Here it "is":
Welcome to Mirror of Justice, a group blog created by a group of Catholic law professors interested in discovering how our Catholic perspective can inform our understanding of the law. Indeed, we ask whether the great wealth of the Catholic intellectual and moral tradition offers a basis for creating a distinctive Catholic legal theory- one distinct from both secular and other religious legal theories. Can Catholic moral theology, Catholic Social Thought and the Catholic natural law tradition offer insights that are both critical and constructive, and which can contribute to the dialogue within both the legal academy and the broader polity? In particular, we ask whether the profoundly counter-cultural elements in Catholicism offer a basis for rethinking the nature of law in our society. The phrase "Mirror of Justice" is one of the traditional appellations of Our Lady, and thus a fitting inspiration for this effort.
A few things about this blog and us:
1. The members of this blog group represent a broad spectrum of Catholic opinion, ranging from the "conservative" to the "liberal", to the extent that those terms make sense in the Catholic context. Some are politically conservative or libertarian, others are on the left politically. Some are highly orthodox on religious matters, some are in a more questioning relationship with the Magisterium on some issues, and with a broad view of the legitimate range of dissent within the Church. Some of us are "Commonweal Catholics"; others read and publish in First Things or Crisis. We are likely to disagree with each other as often as we agree. For more info about us, see the bios linked in the sidebar.
2. We all believe that faith-based discourse is entirely legitimate in the academy and in the public square, and that religious values need not be bracketed in academic or public conversation. We may differ on how such values should be expressed or considered in those conversations or in public decisionmaking.
3. This blog will not focus primarily on the classic constitutional questions of Church and State, although some of our members are interested in those questions and may post on them from time to time. We are more interested in tackiling the larger jurisprudential questions and in discussing how Catholic thought and belief should influence the way we think about corporate law, products liability or capital punishment or any other problem in or area of the law.
4, We are resolutely ecumenical about this blog. We do not want to converse only among ourselves or with other Catholics. We are eager to hear from those of other faith traditions or with no religious beliefs at all. We will post responses (at our editorial discretion, of course.) See "Contact Us" in the sidebar.
5. While this blog will be highly focused on our main topic, we may occasionally blog on other legal/theoretical matters, or on non-legal developments in Catholicism (or on baseball, the other church to which I belong.)
6. We will be linking to relevant papers by the bloggers in the sidebar. Comments welcome!
Although we decided, a few years ago, to move away from "Comments" boxes (though comments, thoughts, and suggestions from readers are always welcome, and we have often posted them as free-standing posts), I'm opening (or, at least, I am trying to) the "Comments" to this post, because I'd like to get thoughts, reactions, reflections, etc., from readers on how well (or not!) we've done over the past 12 years at living out the "charge" that we set for ourselves 12 years ago . . .
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
"Catholic Republicans" and the Rise of Trump
At Commonweal, Anthony Annett has a characteristically hard-hitting but, in this particular case, I believe overstated and in places unfair post called "Catholic Republicans Are Implicated in the Rise of Trump." He is, among other things, responding to our own Robby George's recent call for Catholics not to support Trump (and, in so doing, to prevent the Republican Party from being a reasonably effective even if obviously imperfect vehicle for some causes about which many Catholics care, including the pro-life cause).
The Trump phenomenon is, to me, extremely discouraging and most unwelcome. That said, I appreciate that it's also complicated and that the explanations for it are, too. (I've found folks like Rusty Reno, Ross Douthat, and Charles Murray helpful in understanding what's happening.) The argument in Annett's post is, basically, that conservative Catholic Republicans are "directly implicated in Trump’s meteoric rise. They actively supported the economic policies that fed the beast of insecurity, and they actively undermined the values embedded in the Catholic social tradition that might have acted as a bulwark against this narcissistic blowhard."
Readers can decide for themselves if Annett's descriptions of the policies he mentions, and their effects, are accurate and can determine whether they agree with his understanding of and claims about the implications for policy of Catholic Social Thought and of principles like subsidiarity. It does seem to be the case that many Trump voters are motivated in part by frustration having to do with their understandings of free-trade and other economic policies that Republicans (and, in recent decades, most leading Democrats) have favored. (Whether these voters are correct to think that Donald Trump -- or, for that matter, Bernie Sanders -- has an understanding of economic matters that would ameliorate their frustration is another matter.) Again, there are some commentators who have written thoughtfully on this. But, in my view, Annett paints too broadly, and neglects the many ways in which the loss of a "bulwark against this narcissistic blowhard" (and I certainly agree that Trump is one) is a result of civil-society-institution-and-moral-ecology undermining policies, values, and social changes that are more accurately associated with the Democratic Party and the left-liberal side of American politics. (He does, in one parenthetical sentence, acknowledge that "[t]he Democrats don’t have a stellar record here either. They have spent the past few decades favoring Planned Parenthood, Wall Street, and the 'creative class' over their traditional constituency." I'd call this a considerable understatement.)
Now, all that said: I agree with Robby and others that, on balance and all things considered, the Republican Party has been a useful vehicle -- and that's all, for me, a political party can and should be for Catholics: not part of our identity and not, in itself, an object of loyalty -- for several causes and on several issues that matter to me (e.g., school choice, judges, religious freedom, life, anti-communism, etc.) On some other issues (e.g., criminal justice, immigration, etc.), I would prefer different policies to the ones that Party generally promotes. If the nominee of the Republican Party, however, is Donald Trump, then it seems to me that it becomes unable -- disqualified, really -- from playing even this "vehicular" role (for me). I think the same is true of a Democratic Party led by Sec. Clinton (and, in effect, by Cecile Richards). And so, as I suggested in an earlier post, I'm becoming resigned to writing in my former governor, Mitch Daniels, and spending a fair amount of time praying the rosary and drinking Basil Hayden's (a good Catholic bourbon).
Saturday, March 12, 2016
"Doing Justice Without Doing Harm" Conference at Pepperdine
I am enjoying the conversations (and the scenery, and the weather, . . . ) at Pepperdine University this weekend, thanks to the hospitality of Profs. Michael Helmand and Bob Cochran, and the University's Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics. Our own Amy Gelmen is about to take the podium, to talk about moral obligations of bystanders to those in danger.
This morning, I moderated an interesting panel on Criminal Law matters, at which Prof. Barbara Armacost (to mention just one presenter) shared thoughtful remarks on the phenomenon of solitary confinement. Before that, I had the honor of introducing the keynote lecture on "The Just Limits of Love" by Prof. Nicholas Wolterstorff.
Yesterday, there were two panels on the by-now familiar-to-law-folks debate about accommodations of religion and "third-party harms." I spoke, along with Profs. Fred Gedicks, Nathan Chapman, Mark Scarberry, Chad Flanders, and Doug NeJaime. A good time was had by all. In my remarks, which were directed to the recent paper published by NeJaime and Prof. Reva Siegel, I contended -- drawing on this paper, from about ten years ago -- that the mere fact an accommodation claim involves an issue that is "culture-war" salient or in "democratic contestation" does not provide a (principled) basis for denying the claim.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
John Witte's review of Samuel Moyn on Human Rights and Christianity
In the latest issue of Books & Culture, there is a review by Prof. John Witte of Samuel Moyn's new book, Christian Human Rights. Like everything Witte writes, it is well worth a read. Here's a bit:
Human rights norms ultimately need Christian or comparably sturdy religious or philosophical narratives to ground them, and to adapt and apply them to the culture of each local community. There is, of course, some value in simply declaring human rights norms of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” or “life, liberty, and property”—if for no other reason than to pose an ideal against which a person or community might measure itself, to preserve a normative totem for later generations to make real. But, ultimately, these abstract human rights ideals of the good life and the good society depend on the visions and values of human communities and institutions to give them content and coherence—to provide what Jacques Maritain called “the scale of values governing [their] exercise and concrete manifestation.” It is here that Christianity and other religions must play a vital role. Religion is an ineradicable condition of human lives and human communities. Religions invariably provide many of the sources and “scales of values” by which many persons and communities govern themselves. Religions inevitably help to define the meanings and measures of shame and regret, restraint and respect, responsibility and restitution that a human rights regime presupposes. Religions must thus be seen as indispensable allies in the modern struggle for human rights, along with many other philosophical, moral, cultural resources. To exclude them from the struggle is impossible, indeed catastrophic. To include them, by enlisting their unique resources and protecting their unique rights, is vital to enhancing the regime of human rights.
The review is appreciative, but critical (persuasively so, I think). Check it out.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
An opportunity in religious-freedom: Project Manager for "Under Caesar's Sword" at Notre Dame
More information here.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Troubling report on assisted-suicide in Canada
See the full story here. A bit:
It’s more than a year since the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canadians have a right under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to receive physician assistance in dying. Effective June 6, physician-assisted death will be a funded part of medicare. Parliament has until that date to decide precisely who will be eligible, and what safeguards should be in place. The court foresaw it enacting a “complex regulatory regime” of “carefully designed and monitored safeguards.” Unfortunately, the federal report released yesterday recommends exactly the opposite, and proposes the world’s most open-ended regime with arguably the lowest safeguards. . . .
I've long believed that that assisted suicide would fairly quickly move from being permitted, to being encouraged and incentivized, to being (for some) effectively required.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Robert Maloney on "The Social Nature of Property"
In America, here. Worth a read, though I would have added something about the role that "property" places as a kind of "mediating institution" that can play the important structural role in the social order that other such institutions also play.
My first and (I hope) only post on Donald Trump
A longtime MOJ reader wrote to me and asked why I/we have not said anything about the rise, currently popularity, and apparently likely nomination of Donald Trump. I suppose (speaking only for myself) the reason why I haven't (and least, I don't think I have) said anything about those subjects is a mix of (a) they are depressing and horrifying and (b) I don't imagine a blog that aims to develop and apply "Catholic legal theory" is going to be the go-to spot for commentary on political and cultural phenomena like these.
In any event, and for what it's worth, (i) I desperately do not want Donald Trump to be nominated by one of my country's major parties -- in this case, the party that, in my view, has been a necessary and important vehicle for some important and worthy causes in recent decades; (ii) I am genuinely surprised (and deeply disappointed) by the fact that Trump is getting the support of so many self-described "evangelicals"; (iii) I do not believe that Trump will be elected, but his nomination will bring out and stir up a lot of extremely unattractive and unworthy views and expression, and will undermine (for decades, I suspect) the possibility of real political engagement and argument; and (iv) Trump's nomination will probably mean that the next President will be Sec. Clinton, which (in my view) will be regrettable for many reasons.
There's a lot to be written about why the Trump phenomenon is happening now (I think Ross Douthat and Charles Murray have been very perceptive in identifying some of the reasons). In any event, I imagine I'll be writing in Mitch Daniels's name come November.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
