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 5, 2008

Do yourself a favor ...

...  and read Peter Steinfels's list of the twelve most important religion-related stories of 2008.  Yes, that's 2008.  Over at dotCommonweal.

Catholic Legal Theory and life and death

Tom Berg’s question regarding the propriety or not of capital punishment in grave, i.e., heinous, cases not involving homicide has prompted me to revisit what Catholic teaching has to offer the civil law regarding life and death. I have already offered some personal views on capital punishment that I believe are consistent with Catholic teachings on the matter. [HERE]

But Tom’s posting has raised some other important questions for me. The circle around the issue of what does Catholic legal theory have to say, what could it say, about life and death where heinous crimes are not the central issue? I am of the view that Catholic legal theory, for it to be true to Catholic teaching, must have considered the soteriological (salvation) and eschatological (end times) matters that the legal subject under investigation may be or is related. For example, when we discuss abortion, we are talking about human beings intentionally ending prematurely human life. When we discuss war, we are talking about human beings intentionally ending prematurely human life. When we are discussing embryonic stem cell research, we are talking about human beings intentionally ending prematurely human life. This list is not exhaustive, but it presents a number of contemporary issues that we have been recently addressing at Mirror of Justice.

I am not offering any specific examination of these issues today; however, I am proposing that they and other important legal questions that involve the life and death of fellow human beings and that are under consideration by Catholic legal theorists must take into account how the law will affect the eternal salvation of those involved in the matter along with the final destiny of judgment by and union with God. At this point I am not arguing that all legal questions pose a need for this kind of consideration. But where the legal subject involves human acceleration of the death or end of the earthly life of any human, Catholic legal theory needs to take stock of the eschatological and soteriological dimensions of all involved in the matter. I wonder what others may think about my perspective.       RJA sj

Friday, January 4, 2008

Sarkozy on Church and State

Check out this description of Nicholas Sarkozy's recent talk in Vatican City about the importance of  Christianity contributing to public life in France and Europe and how such contributions are consistent with the "secular state" understood in the proper sense.  (Links included to the original speech and an English translation.)

Tom

Certiorari Grant on Death Penalty and Child Rape

The Supreme Court granted certiorari today in Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343.  The question presented:

Does the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause permit a state to punish the crime of rape of a child under 12, who survived the rape, with the death penalty, and does Louisiana's capital rape statute violate the Eighth Amendment in insufficiently narrowing the class of offenders eligible for the death penalty?

Set aside the constitutional issues, and consider only Catholic moral/social thought.  The question is to Catholics who reject JPII's reasoning in Evangelium Vitae and think that the death penalty may be morally appropriate in some cases as matter of redress/retribution.  Does anyone argue that Catholic thought can justify the death penalty in a case where the offender, although committing a heinous act, has not taken a life?

Tom

More on our Bronze Medal

I think it's great that we (MOJ) won the bronze medal.  We deserve it!   But I have a problem with the description of MOJ:

                   271
votes

Mirror of Justice

Mirror of Justice

Where Pope Benedict XVI is the most-cited legal authority. Canon law is interpreted, and Catholic law school news is covered in detail.




The description should include something along these lines:  " ... and where dissenting Catholics engage in civil, if unpersuasive, discussion with  magisterium-friendly Catholics about such issues as [insert your favorite disputed question here]."

Here's the serious point:   We are a vigorously pluralistic group--and that's one of our greatest strengths!!!!!

And the bronze medal goes to . . .

I'm sure it means very little in the big picture, but we were voted #3 in the "ivory tower" category of the ABA's top 100 blawg survey, behind only the Volokh Conspiracy and Balkinization.

Faith and Law - A New book

Bob Cochran recently published an edited volume "Faith and Law:  How Religious Traditions from Calvinism to Islam View American Law," which I look forward to reading.  "In Faith and Law, legal scholars from sixteen different religious traditions contend that religious discourse has an important function in the making, practice, and adjudication of American law, not least because our laws rest upon a framework of religious values. The book includes faiths that have traditionally had an impact on American law, as well as new immigrant faiths that are likely to have a growing influence. Each contributor describes how his or her tradition views law and addresses one legal issue from that perspective. Topics include abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, immigrant rights, and blasphemy and free speech."

Best Wishes to Robert Araujo--and to Jesuits Everywhere!

 The Tablet
January 5, 2008

Defining Moment for the Jesuits
Michael Walsh

The meeting in Rome this month to elect a new Superior General is the most important gathering of the Society of Jesus for 25 years. It could signal new approaches to both mission and governance

On 7 August 1981 Fr Pedro Arrupe, the popular and charismatic Superior General of the Society of Jesus, suffered a stroke at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci airport as he returned from the Philippines. He was never again capable of governing the order. Unable to speak, he indicated that his American assistant, Vincent O'Keefe, should take over as Vicar General until a General Congregation could be called to elect a successor.

Then the Pope stepped in. In place of Fr O'Keefe, John Paul II simply appointed Fr Paolo Dezza as his own papal delegate/Vicar General. Fr Dezza, known to generations of Jesuits and other seminarians for a singularly tedious Latin tome on metaphysics, was nearly 80 and almost blind. He was therefore to be assisted by Fr Giuseppe Pittau, once rector of Sophia University in Tokyo and at the time provincial superior in Japan. What John Paul II hoped to gain by this is unclear. Jesuits around the globe protested, but obeyed. The surprisingly feisty Fr Dezza governed for a couple of years, and the Society continued much as it had before, until a Congregation was called for September 1983 to accept Fr Arrupe's resignation and elect the present Superior General, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach. In 1991 the Pope rather sportingly made Fr Dezza a cardinal.

Fr Kolvenbach is Dutch, but spent much of his life in the Lebanon - his beard marks the fact that he belonged to one of the Eastern rites - and before his election had moved to Rome to take charge of the Oriental Institute. Whereas Fr Arrupe had been charismatic, Fr Kolvenbach is often described as pragmatic. Fr Michael Holman, the British provincial, told me he was a conscientious administrator, which sounds faint praise but in the circumstances is not. He has helped to rebuild confidence between the papacy and the Society, whose members continue to work in education, missions, social justice and interfaith dialogue.

But his period of office, said Fr Holman, has taken the Society "to new geographical frontiers, to Albania, for example, to Kosovo, Russia and to many other places by promoting the Jesuit Refugee Service ... he has encouraged us in whatever ministry to meet the challenge of secularism and unbelief with a witness to the Gospel made credible by our witness to the poor, to use effectively the tools of technology and the media, to adopt new forms of ministry with young people and young adults".

After 25 years in office, and at the age of nearly 80, Fr Kolvenbach wants to retire and return to the Middle East. Alone among Superiors of Religious orders, the Jesuit General is elected for life, so the forthcoming General Congregation, the 35th in the Society's 468-year history, will first have to accept his resignation before choosing a successor. When I asked Fr Holman about possible Vatican influence on the voting, he diplomatically restricted himself to saying that the Prefect for the Congregation for Consecrated Life would preside at the opening Mass on 7 January and that the Pope, whom delegates are to meet in February, will be the first to be informed of the name of the new General.

There is, however, rather more to it than that. After the problems of the early 1980s, the Jesuit powers-that-be hope that the person selected will be acceptable to the Pope. It is said that a long list of some 60 names of likely candidates has already been submitted to the Vatican, just in case there are problems. And there is another issue where Pope Benedict has had an input. The Society's various provinces send in postulata, or topics they would like to be debated at the Congregation. Several provinces made the suggestion that in future the General should retire, perhaps at 80. Discussion on this, which would be a major change to the Society's Constitution, has been vetoed by the Holy See. Benedict XVI, a Rome-based Jesuit suggested to me, was alarmed by the thought that if the "black pope" was obliged to retire at 80, people might start to expect the same of the "white" one.

[To read the rest, click here.]

Thursday, January 3, 2008

St. Lawrence

Rock Chalk Jayhawk!  Kansas 24 - Va. Tech 21!

Memo to Rick re Capital Punishment, the Constitution, and the Courts

In response to Rick's post this afternoon, let me say this:

We must distinguish between two questions:  (1) Does capital punishment violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments?  (2)  Should we want to Supreme Court to rule that capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments?

Rick and I agree that *if* the answer to the first question is no, then the answer to the second question should be no too.

However, if the answer to the first question is yes, it does not follow that the answer to the second question should be yes too.  Why not?  Well, I answer that question (among others) in my new book:  Constitutional Rights, Moral Controversy, and the Supreme Court:  A (Partial) Theory of Judicial Review (forthcoming, Cambridge University Press).

As it happens, I think that the answer to the first question is yes--and that the answer to the second question is ... no.