At the Commonweal website, Anthony Annett has posted links to Margaret Archer's response to a recent piece by Stefano Gennarini in which the latter (fairly, in my opinion) expressed concerns about Archbishop Sorondo's defense of the decision to include Jeffrey Sachs and Ban Ki-moon at a recent Vatican conference on climate change. I don't want to weigh in on that dust-up, though (well, maybe a little . . . I think Archbishop Sorondo and Archer were simultaneously more defensive and aggressive than was warranted), and instead wanted to say just a bit about Anthony's statement, here, that:
So let the response to such provocation be: “I oppose abortion, but do you oppose decarbonization”? I would like to hear an answer to that question from Stefano Gennarini, George Weigel, Robbie George, Raymond Arroyo, Bill Donohue and all others who seek to downplay and dismiss these concerns.
I would argue that, from a moral perspective, opposing decarbonization is not that different from supporting legalized abortion—you might not be the acting moral agent, but you are still complicit in the structures of sin. Putting it another way, it might not be formal cooperation with evil, but it is certainly material.
I certainly do not "dismiss" concerns about the dangers posed to human well-being by failures to take care of our natural (as well as moral) ecology. I do worry, though, about connecting too closely something as amorphous as "decarbonization" with the moral wrong of abortion. I assume that it makes good sense and is the right thing to do to try -- in a way that makes sense and in which the reasonably foreseen costs are not exceeded by the reasonably foreseen benefits -- to "decarbonize" our local, national, and global economies (by, for example, facilitating the increased reliance on nuclear energy).
But, it also seems to me crucial to recall that, with respect to any particular elective abortion, we can say "those who performed and procured that abortion wronged the unborn child, who had a human right not to be violated, and it is unjust that our positive laws permitted that wrong to be done." It is harder to say, when we observe our neighbor driving by on her way to drop the kids off at school on the way to work, "that neighbor of mine is committing a wrong and it is unjust that she is allowed to do so."
Now, Anthony talks about "material" cooperation and complicity in "structures of sin," and so he might well not disagree with what I said in the previous paragraph. But, I guess I still have strong reservations about the suggestion that "opposing decarbonization" is similar to supporting abortion -- in part because I assume that none of thinkers Annett mentions "oppos[e] decarbonization" but instead oppose "the idea that decarbonization is a moral imperative that floats above cost-benefit analysis -- that is, the costs and benefits to the flourishing, health, and development of human persons -- of particular decarbonization proposals and policies."
Monday, June 15, 2015
Something to keep in mind -- and tell others about -- whenever it is suggested that it is "scare-mongering" or "paranoid" to warn about how quickly and far off-the-rails we are going when it comes to respecting the dignity of disabled human persons:
Spain, like the rest of Western Europe, has made gentle peace with the idea of abortion on demand for any reason, including — or perhaps especially — a diagnosis of Down syndrome. This was on naked display this week in Madrid, where Genoma, a Swiss biotechnology company, debuted a building-sized banner advertisement for its latest “non-invasive” prenatal test for Down syndrome. The name of the test — “Tranquility,” could it get any creepier? — stretches out in broad letters above the soft-focus photo of a young girl with Down syndrome.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419736/abortion-friendly-firm-spain-uses-girl-down-syndrome-its-ads-matthew-hennessey
Dana Milbank says "yes," in this WaPo piece. Commenting on proposed legislation in the Senate that would closely regulate all late-term abortions, Milbank -- following Slate's Will Saletan -- charges Sen. Lindsey Graham and others with illogic (and worse): "Opposing late-term abortions does next to nothing to reduce abortions, but it works well with Republican presidential primary voters. Broadening the use of contraceptives would seriously reduce abortions, but it would be poisonous to the GOP primary electorate." He adds:
Yet pro-life groups refuse to take up the cause of birth control, because so many of their supporters have problems with that, too. “They’ve betrayed the one thing they stand for, which is reducing abortions,” Saletan said.
Put aside, for now, what strikes me as the very implausible claim that the declining numbers of abortions has little to do with the increased regulation of abortion facilities and providers. (Put aside also the intriguing possibility that baby pictures on Facebook and higher-tech sonograms are contributing.) And, let's concede for the sake of argument that increased access to contraception does not only correlate with, but also contribute to, a reduction in the number of abortions.
It is not "illogical," it seems to me, for someone to say (a) "X is unjust and harmful -- in fact, X involves a seriously immoral act of violence on an innocent person. Accordingly, the public authority should prohibit, to the extent possible, X, just as it would prohibit other seriously unjust and harmful acts" while at the same time not saying (b) "we will pursue and enact all regulatory and policy measures that might contribute, through incentives, etc., to a reduction in X." Some some measures will and should be enacted, for sure. But some might have downsides, some might be too expensive, some might themselves be unjust. In such cases, a decision to not pursue and enact such measures does not mean that the claim in (a) about the immorality of X is hypocritical or undermined.
I'm certainly not alone, but C.S. Lewis significantly affected and shaped how I think -- and how I want to think -- about the world. It's not only the Narnia books and the Space Trilogy (though I still think they're wonderful) and it's also not the more famous apologetics works, like Mere Christianity. For me, a little book (his last) called The Discarded Image, along with a short essay called "The Weight of Glory," were key. I've cited often, both in published work and in talks, the following passage from the latter:
“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”
(In fact, "Everlasting Splendours" is the title of this chapter I did in a really nice volume on Catholic legal thought edited by our own Michael Scaperlanda and Teresa Collett.)
Anyway . . . the Chronicle has this review of this new book, by Carol and Philip Zaleski on "The Inklings." Check it out.
Joseph Vining has posted (here) a short paper called "Reading John Noonan," which is forthcoming in the Villanova Law Review. The abstract is short-and-sweet:
John Noonan is a giant in American law and legal practice -- a distinguished legal historian and a true judge. His reflections on the nature of law have a special importance. This essay is a comment on basic elements in his thought.
And, check out the keywords:
jurisprudence, slavery, universality of value, development and change, morality, history, person, legal person, individual, equity practice, human rights, utilitarianism, positivism, humanism
!
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Do you own this book yet: "Pope Benedict XVI's Legal Thought: A Dialogue on the Foundation of Law"? You should. Thanks to John Witte's Cambridge Studies in Law and Christianity, we have with this volume an excellent collection of reflections on church-state relations, human dignity, human rights, and democracy by (to mention just a few) Mary Ann Glendon, John Witte, Joe Weiler, Andrea Pin . . . Run, don't walk . . .
I imagine many MOJ readers have encountered this before ("Why Work?", by Dorothy Sayers) but, just in case, check it out. The idea/aspiration of "vocation" has long been a subject of interest at this blog, and Sayers's thoughts are, for me, really helpful.
