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.

Monday, May 5, 2008

Rich on the Obama Double-Standard

By Eduardo Penalver

Frank Rich points towards a double standard in the media’s treatment of Wright:

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

I think this is about right. I actually think McCain’s search for the Hagee endorsement is worse than Obama staying in his church despite the views of his pastor. A person remains in a congregation for a number of reasons, the pastor being just one of them. Churches are, after all (or, at least, for most of us), communities of faith, and not just Sunday entertainment provided by the pastor. Someone might stay in a church because of its commitment to service, its connections to a particular neighborhood or ethnic group, bonds with fellow parishioners, etc.  Indeed, those who casually say that Obama should have left his church reveal to me a fairly shallow approach towards life in a church. Perhaps I say this because I’m Catholic. By necessity, we have a uniquely non-pastor-centered approach to Church. But I’d imagine the same is true to varying degrees even for more congregational protestants. (As an aside, it’s at least ironic that so much of the Wright story is being flogged by Catholic journalists O’Reilly and Hannity. Stephen Colbert — who is a weekly mass Catholic — had the right take on this facet of the story.  Continuing to attend mass, he suggested, does not signal agreement with how the Church has handled, say, the abuse scandal.)

In any event, seeking out a pastor’s endorsement is a different sort of calculation than deciding whether to leave a church because of occasionally controversial (even outrageous) comments made by its pastor.  So I’m much more troubled by McCain’s flirtation with Hagee than by Obama’s decision to continue attending his church.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Any "Star Wars" Fans Out There?

By Michael Perry

Then you must watch this!

[HT: dotCommonweal.]

Black Liberation Theology

By Eduardo Penalver

An interesting and sympathetic op-ed in today's NY Times on black liberation theology. 

Academic Freedom, Church Authority, and Falling Madly in Love with Christ

By Michael Scaperlanda

Thank you Steve Shiffrin and Fr. Araujo for your recent comments (here) and (here) in this ongoing conversation on Academic Freedom and Church Authority.  Following Thérèse of Lisieux, one of thirty-three doctors of the church, I understand my Christian vocation as three-fold:  to engage life with a certain realism, seeing my own weakness and the weakness of others, for example, straight-on without sugar coating; to fall madly in love with the One who came to heal those weaknesses and forgive our sins; and to be Christ – to be love – for others.  I become more aware everyday of the vast difference between this call and my response, but like Thérèse, I take comfort in God’s justice:  “His justice … is clothed with love, for how sweet a joy it is to think that God is just; that, in other words, He makes allowances for our weaknesses and understands perfectly the frailty of our humanity.”

How can I – we – be sure of God’s infinite mercy, this divine justice, 2000 years after Christ walked the earth?  The Catholic answer, is, I think, the one given by Susan in her reflection on the tent; we have a continuing and unbroken line of witnesses (through apostolic succession) testifying to the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts.  These witnesses are our authority.  They are authoritative witnesses.  And, over the millennia that authority has been exercised – even against great odds and political pressure – to decide great questions of faith and morals.  Non-Christians do not believe (they give no authority to) this 2000 year line of witnesses.  Protestants implicitly give authority to much of what these witnesses taught in the first 1000 years, although they ultimately reject their authority. 

In response to (maybe in agreement with) Steve, I believe that the Church is in constant need of reform, and I trust that the Holy Spirit will – in God’s timing – provide holy souls to call the Church, including those in authority, to reformation.  I also see what Cardinal Newman referred to as the development of doctrine.  As the mystery of Christ continues to unfold like a beautiful rose, there are some who want to see it open in one way and others who hope it opens in another, leading to squabbles and more.

Shouldn’t those who seek reformation within the Church (like Francis of Assisi or Catherine of Siena) or who seek certain doctrinal developments, do so with strength, gentleness, love, and humility, rightly recognizing those who have authority over us?  Isn’t “dissent” that is “arrogant, strident, and bitter” or engaged in by “pressure” contrary to the Gospel and contrary to the respect owed to those who have been placed in authority over us?  In short, Cardinal Dulles is not saying don’t “dissent,” he is merely reminding us that such dissent should be expressed with love and humility following in the footsteps of Christ and His many saints, including Thérèse.  Steve, is this wrong?  Do you disagree?

As for the blog’s tenor, I am continually grateful that MOJ has assembled a diverse group of Catholic (and even one who remains on the other bank of the Tiber) legal academics who have managed for over four years now to engage in sometimes robust but almost always respectful debate and dialogue.  What a blessing!   

The Strain of Health Care Costs

By Susan Stabile

I've expressed concern about access to health care both here and elsewhere in my writing.  As an article in today's New York Times discusses, the problem is not simply that the number of those completely with health insurance is growing.  Even those with insurance are finding that they cannot afford the increasing amounts they are being asked to pay for coverage.  The combination of higher premiums and larger deductibles and co-payments are forcing increasing numbers to go without necessary care.  And when they do receive care, many are finding that all of their expenses are not being covered by plans that have less coverage than they used to.  "Experts say that too often for the underinsured, coverage can seem like health insurance in name only - adequate only as long as they have no medical problems."

It is hard to fault employers for demanding that employees pick up more of the costs of their care, especially small employers whose "insurance premiums tend to be proportionately higher than ones paid by large employers, becuase small companies have little bargaining clout with insurers."  But all employers are feeling the strain of increased competitive pressures and a weak economy.

In his encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII identified health care as among the basic rights that flow from the dignity of the human person.  In his address to the 34th General Assembly of the United Nations, Pope John Paul II included as among the human rights endorsed by the Catholic Church "the right to food, clothing, housing [and] sufficient health care."

We need to be giving much more serious consideration than we are to the question of how to provide this basic need to all persons.  Among other things, that requires coming up with some viable means of cutting health care costs.  I've seen far too little discussion of how this can be accomplished in the sound bites we are getting on the health care plans offered by the Presidential candidates.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Evangelicals and the Climate Change Debate

By Michael Perry

Interesting post by David Skeel over at Stuntz/Skeel, here.  The new post is a followup to this earlier post.

Freedom of the church, human rights, and other matters

By Patrick McKinley Brennan

I have recently posted two new papers here and here on SSRN.  One, "Differentiating Church and State (Without Losing the Church)," was prepared for a recent conference, at Georgetown Law Center, on the liberty of the church.  The other, unprovocatively titled "'What's the Matter with You Catholics?'", is a review essay of Mary Ann Glendon's new book Traditions in Turmoil, a collection of nearly fifty of her essays and other short pieces.  (To end the suspense, the question about what's wrong with you/us Catholics was addressed to Glendon by her husband, Ed Lev).

Freedom of the church and other matters

By Patrick McKinley Brennan

"'An Evangelical Manifesto' criticizes politics of faith"

By Michael Perry

[From CNN.com.  HT:  dotCommonweal.]

May 2, 2008

(AP) -- Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.

The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."

"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others," the statement says, "while we have condoned our own sins." It argues, "we must reform our own behavior."

The document is the latest chapter in the debate among conservative Christians about their role in public life. Most veteran leaders believe the focus should remain on abortion and marriage, while other evangelicals -- especially in the younger generation -- are pushing for a broader agenda. The manifesto sides with those seeking a wide-range of concerns beyond "single-issue politics."

Among the signers of the manifesto are Os Guiness, a well-known evangelical author and speaker, and Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Pasadena, California. Organizers declined to comment until the final document is released.

They say more than 80 evangelicals have signed the statement, although only a few names have been released. A. Larry Ross, spokesman for the authors, said the theologians and Christian leaders involved are seeking to "go back to the root theological meaning of the term evangelical."

Some champions of traditional culture war issues are not among the supporters.

Richard Land, head of the public policy arm for the Southern Baptist Convention, said through a spokeswoman that he has not seen the document and was not asked to sign it.

James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, a Christian group in Colorado Springs, Colorado, did not sign the document, said Gary Schneeberger, a Dobson spokesman. Schneeberger would not say whether Dobson had read the manifesto or had been asked to sign on.

Phil Burress, an Ohio activist who networks with national evangelical leaders, said that if high-profile evangelical leaders such as Dobson and Land don't support the document, "it's like throwing a pebble in the ocean" and will carry no weight.

But the drafters hope they can start a movement among evangelicals to reflect and act on the document. "We must find a new understanding of our place in public life," the drafters wrote.

Friday, May 2, 2008

At Last, the Grisly Show Resumes!

By Michael Perry

New York Times
May 3, 2008

After Hiatus, States Set Wave of Executions
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

HUNTSVILLE, Tex. — Here in the nation’s leading death-penalty state, and some of the 35 others with capital punishment, execution dockets are quickly filling up.

Less than three weeks after a United States Supreme Court ruling ended a seven-month moratorium on lethal injections, at least 14 execution dates have been set in six states between May 6 and October.

“The Supreme Court essentially blessed their way of doing things,” said Douglas A. Berman, a professor of law and a sentencing expert at Ohio State University. “So in some sense, they’re back from vacation and ready to go to work.”

Experts say the resumption of executions is likely to throw a strong new spotlight on the divisive national — and international — issue of capital punishment.

“When people confront a new wave of executions, they’ll be questioning not only how people are executed but whether people should be executed,” said James R. Acker, a historian of the death penalty and a criminal justice professor at the State University at Albany.

Texas leads the list with five people now set to die here in the Walls Unit, the state’s death house, between June 3 and Aug. 20. Virginia is next with four. Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Dakota have also set execution dates.

Some welcome the end of the moratorium.

[Read on, here.]

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive