After reading Patrick Brennan's recent post about the upcoming Scarpa conference at Villanova, I started thinking--what a great conference, but why do these conferences fall when the baseball pennant races are swinging into high gear, when important college football games (ND-Michigan) are being played, and when many of us are trying to figure out the offsides rule while watching youth soccer games. I then realized that I won't be attending to any of these important matters this weekend either because there is another important conference that will be occupying the time of contributors and friends to MOJ.
On Septemeber 15-16, 2006, Ave Maria School of Law will be hosting a conference on "Pope John Paul II and the Law." This conference is being supported by a generous grant from Our Sunday Visitor Institute. Information about the conference is available here.
Here is the list of speakers, in order of appearance--Kevin Lee, Gerry Bradley, Howard Bromberg, Father Kevin Flannery S. J., Ed Peters, Jane Adolphe, Father Robert Araujo S. J., Jason Eyster, and Richard Myers. I hate to single out any particular speaker but I think the highlights will be Ed Peters's talk on canon law (a much-neglected topic) and the different perspectives on capital punishment that will be offered by Father Flannery (from the Gregorian who this year is the Remick Fellow at Notre Dame's Center for Ethics and Culture) and my colleague Howard Bromberg.
The papers from the conference will be published by the Ave Maria Law Review in the spring of 2007
Richard M.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
On September 15-16, 2006, Ave Maria School of Law will be hosting a conference on Pope John Paul II and the Law. The conference is supported by a generous grant from Our Sunday Visitor Institute. Jane Adolphe, Father Robert Araujo S. J., Gerry Bradley, Howard Bromberg, Jason Eyster, Father Kevin Flannery S. J., Kevin Lee, Richard Myers, and Ed Peters will be speaking at the conference. The papers from the conference will be published in the Ave Maria Law Review. Conference information (schedule, registration form) is available here.
Richard M.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The book to consult on this issue is John Connery S. J.'s book "Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective" (Loyola University Press 1977). Father Connery explains that Antoninus relied on the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus that was prevalent before the process of fetal development was understood. Antoninus condemned abortion of the animated fetus in all cases. For the unanimated fetus, Antoninus allowed abortion to save the life of the mother. According to Father Connery, this was completely dependent on the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus and so I don't think it is fair to cite Antoninus as supporting a pro-choice position. Later commentators who defend "abortion" to save the life of the mother (removal of a cancerous uterus) do so not because they defend the direct, intentional killing of a human life but because they regard the death of the fetus in such circumstances as incidental.
It is true that there have been individual Catholics who defend a "pro-choice" position (I suppose Daniel MaGuire, who has used the example of St. Antoninus, is one example). I don't think this supports the view that the Magisterium has taken conflicting views on the moral permissibility of abortion. And, I don't think it fair to use St. Antoninus's views on abortion to support the view that the Church has taken different views on this question. From Father Connery's account, St. Antoninus sounds more like Pope John Paul in Evangelium Vitae than Daniel MaGuire.
Richard M.
Monday, July 31, 2006
The most recent volume published by University Faculty for Life is hot off the presses. The volume is the proceedings of UFL's fifteenth annual conference. That conference, which was held at Ave Maria School of Law, was supported by a generous grant from Our Sunday Visitor Institute.
The volume includes essays by Richard Wilkins, John Keown, Richard Stith, and Mark Latkovic. I'd be happy to send a copy of the volume to anyone who is interested (while supplies last). Just send me an email.
Richard M.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
I think Rob is correct that Leiter is off on the wrong track in his contribution to this discussion. Leiter certainly has a conception of reasons that he thinks are an appropriate basis for governmental action. He says that only "public reasons" count. That "sectarian, religious beliefs" don't. How do we tell which category we are in. He says, unhelpfuly, that this is on the basis of a "head count." Previously he said that the only reasons that count are "public reasons acceptable to all reasonable people." So, apparently, the only people whose "heads" are being counted are "reasonable" people. As lots of people have discussed, "reasonable" in this context means those who accept a narrow form of secular rationality that is confined to a very tiny segment of the population. Leiter tells us that Bush's view is religious becasue he says that it depends on ensoulment. I don't think that is true. (I don't believe that the Catholic Church has ever taken a position on the precise time that ensoulment occurs and the Church's respect for human life at all stages of development doesn't depend on ensoulment. See Donum Vitae on this point.)
I think one of the best things written on this is a piece published by Michael McConnell entitled "Five Reasons to Reject the Claim that Religious Arguments Should be Excluded from Democratic Deliberation," and published at 1999 Utah L. Rev. 639. There, McConnell concluded: "One false view of separation is the view that religious ideas must not serve as rationales for public policy. This view, called the 'principle of secular rationale,' is put forward as a means of protecting the public sphere from divisive, absolutist, intolerant impulses and from arguments that cannot be supported on the basis of accessible public reasons. But in fact, it rests on inaccurate stereotypes and questionable epistemological premises, and it would disenfranchise religious persons as full participating members of the political community. The United States has never adhered to the principle of secular rationale. Indeed, our political history is rife with religious political activists and religious political arguments....There is no good democratic argument for excluding them. But more than this: to exclude them would be inconsistent with the very ideals of democratic equality that the principle of secular rationale ostensibly seeks to protect. It is time to stop challenging our fellow citizen's right to be part of democratic dialogue, and time to engage their arguments on the merits."
Richard M.
