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.

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Catholic legal education

By Richard Myers

I have a quick follow-up to Rick Garnett's post on Catholic legal education from a few days ago. I think the most useful starting place in these discussions is to reflect on Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities. The title conveys an important insight. Many in Catholic institutions of higher education view themselves as independent of the Church and envision their task as somehow providing a bridge between the Church and the world (of higher education). Ex Corde's orientation is totally different. The Catholic university is born from the heart of the Church. The Catholic university is not somehow independent of the Church, it is a part of the Church. A university that wants to stop calling itself Catholic is of course in a very different position. But a university that wants to claim a Catholic identity is properly viewed as part of the Church and as Rick notes is necessarily committed to the cause of the truth and to the supreme Truth, who is God (as Ex Corde states in paragraph 4). It does this not with fear or embarassment but with enthusiasm and with an awareness that it has been preceded by Jesus Christ--the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Catholic university is one of the principal means through which the Church engages modern culture. In so doing, the Catholic university must, according to Ex Corde's paragraph 13, have 4 essential characteristics: "1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such; 2. A continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowlesge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research; 3. Fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church; 4. An institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimmage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life."

A Catholic law school ought to begin reflections on its identity by considering the extent to which it is being faithful to this charge.

Richard

      

Thursday, January 13, 2005

the vocation of a Catholic teacher/scholar

By Richard Myers

As an addendum to Michael's post on the Integral Formation of the Human Person, I'd like to recommend an excellent essay written by Bill May on The Vocation of a Catholic Teacher/Scholar. The link I provided is to an issue of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly that also contains a fine article by John Breen.

Richard

Friday, December 3, 2004

the status of Roe v. Wade

By Richard Myers

I ran across an op-ed piece in today's San Francisco Chronicle that takes what is apparently an increasingly common position among law professors who are in favor of abortion rights. The essay by Mary Dudziak argues that the current concern about the fate of Roe v. Wade with new membership on the Supreme Court is misplaced because "the heart and soul of Roe was actually overruled in 1992." According to this view, the Court in Casey "retained Roe in name only. It pulled out the substance, and inserted a substitute. It was not the core of Roe that was preserved, but instead just a shell." This is very similar to the view expressed by Chris Whitman in the centennial issue of the Michigan Law Review. See 100 Mich. L. Rev. 1980 (2002). There, Whitman argued that "only a sliver" of the right to abortion remains after Casey. I recently published a comment on Whitman's article in a University Faculty for Life volume edited by Father Joe Koterski SJ. My comment explores this argument in more detail than I can provide here. But I think the rhetorical startegy of Dudziak and Whitman needs to be countered. Any serious discussion of the constitutional issues raised by pro-life legislation needs to begin by accurately describing the current state of affairs, and a discussion that contends that the right to abortion has only a "minimal existence" under current law doesn't meet even the lowest possible standard of accuracy. We ought to be able to expect better from distinguished academics.

Richard

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

two conferences

By Richard Myers

I wanted to let readers know about two conferences. One occurred last Friday in Provo, Utah. That conference, which addressed "Interjurisdictional Recognition of Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Benefits," was co-sponsored by BYU Law School and Ave Maria School of Law. The conference featured some of the leading conflicts scholars in the nation. For more information about the conference, including most of the papers, take a look at the conference website.

The other conference will be held in Ann Arbor, Michigan on November 19-20, 2004. This second conference, which is entitled "Rethinking Rights:Historical, Political, and Theological Perspectives," is being co-sponsored by Ave Maria School of Law and the Murphy Institute of the University of St. Thomas. The speakers at this conference include my colleague Bruce Frohnen, Charles Reid (St. Thomas), R.H. Helmholz (Chicago), George Carey (Georgetown), and Brian Tierney (Cornell). For more information, take a look at the conference website. 

The papers from both conferences will be published by the Ave Maria Law Review.

Richard

Thursday, October 28, 2004

which is the pro-life party?

By Richard Myers

Mark Roche claimed that the Democratic Party was, in fact, the pro-life Party because the Democrats had, despite their enthusiastic embrace of abortion rights, had more success in reducing the abortion rates than had the Republicans. Readers who are interested in this issue might want to take a look at this article by Professor Michael New, or at this information on the National Right to Life Committee website. According to these articles, "the success of pro-life candidates has resulted in real reductions in the abortion rate," in the words of Professor New.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

voting and political contributions

By Richard Myers

The Cardinal Newman Society reports, here, on political donations by employees of Catholic universities. Among the interesting facts noted there are that contributions favor Kerry by 9 to 1 and that Mark Roche is listed as a contributor to the Kerry campaign. I guess the Roche contribution is consistent with his Times editorial. There, he had argued that Kerry was really the pro-life candidate and was better on "Catholic" issues such as the environment and that on balance Catholics ought to vote for Kerry. I still, and maybe I'm just naive, found the political contribution surprising since the tone of the editorial seemed to be a reluctant vote for Kerry as the "lesser of two evils." I might be misreading the tone of the piece. I wonder if there is a difference between a reluctant, "hold your nose and vote for Kerry" done because proportionate reasons outweigh material cooperation with evil, and contributing money to the campaign of a candidate who is, as Greg Sisk has helpfully documented, an enthusiastic proponent of abortion rights.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

compendium of social doctrine

By Richard Myers

Zenit reported recently that the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" will be published on October 25 by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Richard

more on the Times editorial

By Richard Myers

A few more comments on this issue. I don't think Archbishop Burke's pastoral letter is a polemic, but I suppose others disagree. I'd encourage people to take a look at the letter. Rob Vischer provided a link to the pastoral in his post of October 7. Much of the pastoral is devoted to summarizing the Church's teaching on the moral evil of abortion and the destruction of human embryos and the teaching on the good of marriage and the family. He also explains that attacks on human life and the family erode the very foundation of the common good, and that for that reason are on a different plane than issues where Catholic politicians and voters make prudential judgments about the best way to achieve certain objectives without necessarily becoming complicit in evil.

What is sometimes missing in pieces such as Roche's brief in support of the Kerry/Edwards ticket is the point that John Langan made towards the end of the talk to which Michael referred--"The essential Catholic affirmation is that abortion is an evil." Roche does say this although it seems obscured by the body of his essay. And politicians who claim to be "personally opposed" do the same. It is hard to look at the parties and conclude that they are divided simply by disagreement over the proper prudential strategy for ending what they agree is an "unspeakable crime." Politicians such as Kerry and Jennifer Granholm (here in my home state of Michigan) who claim to be faithful Catholics and also claim to be "100% pro-choice" really do seem to lack "the essential Catholic affirmation" that John Langan mentioned. Voters who vote for such politicians are, at least, materially cooperating in the pro-abortion policies of these politicians. Would they really justify such votes if they really thought that abortion and the destruction of human embryos for research purposes were evil. Would they really justify such votes if the issue were slavery or torture, the issues to which Roche compared abortion in his Times essay.

Robbie George and Gerry Bradley were two of the other speakers at the Ave Maria conference that Michael mentioned. Readers of this blog might be interested in their papers from that conference. The papers are available on the Events section of the Ave Maria School of Law website. See . George and Bradley also published a piece in today's issue of National Review Online that discusses the Roche essay. See .

Richard

Monday, October 11, 2004

times editorial: a dissent

By Richard Myers

I have to confess that I didn't find the Times editorial by Mark Roche particularly helpful in thinking through these issues.

First, the title, although I realize that op-ed writers are not always responsible for the titles of their pieces. Why the opposition between "our conscience" and "our religion?" I think faithful Catholics would do better to read the discussion in Archbishop Burke's recent pastoral on conscience and the moral law.

Second, the op-ed sets up a false polarity. The Republicans take the Catholic position on abortion but the Democrats take the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care, and environmental protection. I think we can safely say that there is a Catholic position on abortion but we can't say the same about health care and the environment. (I'll put aside the issue of the death penalth for the moment, but I'd be happy to address that point.) And, in fact the Democrats are actually more pro-life than the Republicans, and that "honest" Catholics ought to vote for Kerry/Edwards. We know this because of their position on the issues noted above but also because Clinton was more pro-life than Reagan. This is due to Clinton's more successful record in reducing the number of legal abortions and the abortion rate, which are likely attributable to increased social spending. I think it is misleading to credit Clinton, who was fully in favor of Roe and Casey, with these positive signs. The issue is complicated, of course, but surely more credit ought to go to parental notice laws, the heroic work of crisis pregnancy centers, the increasing realization that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and ultimately harms women.

The op-ed seems a somewhat more nuanced version of Father Greeley's recent piece that Catholics shouldn't feel any qualms about voting for a candidate who is 100% in favor of abortion rights.

I think Catholics who are struggling with these issues would do far better to consider Archbishop Burke's fine pastoral letter "On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good."

Richard

Previous Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive