Rick has asked an excellent question regarding “what does it mean” to be a Catholic law school? Well, I think he has raised an honest and important question that several of us have addressed in the past along with friends of MOJ such as John Breen. As there are many rooms in our Father’s house, so there might be many ways of yet, once again, approaching this important question.
But, to date, I do not believe that any of us have addressed the issue of how do we take stock of the following profession of faith that needs to be considered when we discuss this vital issue amongst ourselves and with those who wish to teach at a “Catholic law school.” It seems that some candidates may wish to investigate this matter even though hiring representatives may consider it out of bounds insofar as they may conclude the AALS would not approve of an investigation of the profession. I wonder what would happen if it were discussed with those who currently teach at “Catholic law schools”? But I shall leave this second matter for another day. Here’s the text which, sooner or later, must have a bearing on the work of a Catholic law school:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I am on my way back -- having a beer in the airport -- from the AALS hiring conference. It was great seeing so many MOJ colleagues, friends, and readers at the religiously-affiliated-schools reception and elsewhere.
One result of spending the day meeting and talking with a contingent of talented, engaging, and intimidatingly credentialed would-be law professors (that is, an effect besides the "good Lord, I'm glad I got my job ten years ago" feeling) is reflection on what it means -- beyond slogans, or feel-good generalities -- to profess and aspire to be a "Catholic law school". How like the question that cropped up on this blog and elsewhere a few weeks ago -- i.e., what is a "Catholic judge," and is Justice Scalia one -- is this one?
To their credit, most of the future law-teachers with whom my Notre Dame colleagues and I spoke asked us about -- "called us" on -- the "Catholic mission" thing. As a rule, we would say, among other things, that there are dozens of faculty and each would likely express and live out the "thing" in different ways. Fair enough. But, what else? Some affirmations of the importance of community, collegiality, social-justice, etc., were also appropriate, and regularly provided. We talked some about how a Catholic law school's mission finds natural expression in indisciplinary work (that is, "interdisciplinarity" is not, on the Catholic understanding of a university's work, a fad or an add-on; it's a natural, necessary feature of the search for truth.) And, I emphasized, as I usually do in these conversations, my view that a Catholic law school should call its students and faculty to "integration."
But . . . what else is needed? What else should be said? I've been teaching at a Catholic law school for nine years, blogging about Catholic legal theory for nearly five, and have talked to dozens and dozens of potential hires. I know -- I just know -- there's more to the "mission" of an authentically, meaningfully Catholic law school than what I usually manage to articulate, and I feel like I'm not doing right by those who say, "that sounds interesting, even attractive . . . what does it mean?"
As Michael notes, I have often linked to Rod Dreher's writings, particularly his "crunchy con" stuff. With respect to Dreher's recent statement that he "was appalled to hear the judge say that the president has the right to decide which laws he’s going to obey, under certain circumstances": For more on what Mukasey actually said, in the exchange to which Dreher refers, and on the question whether what he endorsed would actually constitute an "expan[sion] of executive authority," go here. (For more on the -- to me -- frustrating unwillingess or inability of Mukasey to concede that waterboarding is "torture", go to the Balkinization blog.)
Dreher also writes, as Michael notes, "[t]his country cannot afford an attorney general who believes that executive power should be expanded so greatly." Maybe not. Dreher also believes, I am confident, that "this country cannot countenance an attorney general who believes that the Constitution removes from the reach of democratic politics the question whether elected representatives have the authority to regulate partial-birth abortion." We'll see . . .
Rick Garnett has occasionally called our attention to Rob Dreher. Here's what Dreher has to say about Mukasey, according to The Opinionator (New York Times online):
A conservative vote against Mukasey: “I was appalled to hear the judge
say that the president has the right to decide which laws he’s going to
obey, under certain circumstances,” says “Crunchy Con” Rod Dreher at his Beliefnet blog.
He adds, “This country cannot afford an attorney general who believes
that executive power should be expanded so greatly. I don’t care if the
office sits vacant until Bush is out of office. The line has to be
drawn by the Senate.”
A good op-ed, by Michael Gerson, discussing James Watson's recent racist statements (and also earlier statements of his about aborting children with Down's Syndrome):
No one should underestimate the wrenching challenge of having a disabled child. But we also should not ignore the social consequences of widespread screening of children for "desirable" traits. This kind of "choice" is actually a form of absolute power of one generation over the next -- the power to forever define what is "normal," "straight" and "beautiful." And it leads inevitably to discrimination. British scientist Robert Edwards has argued, "Soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease." A sin. Which leaves disabled children who escape the net of screening -- the result of parental sin -- to be born into a new form of bastardy and prejudice.
This creates an inevitable tension within liberalism. The left in America positions itself as both the defender of egalitarianism and of unrestricted science. In the last presidential election, Sen. John Kerry pledged to "tear down every wall" that inhibited medical research. But what happens when certain scientific views lead to an erosion of the ideal of equality? Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a rising academic analyst of these trends, argues: "Watson is anti-egalitarian in the extreme. Science looks at human beings in their animal aspects. As animals, we are not always equal. It is precisely in the ways we are not simply animals that we are equal. So science, left to itself, poses a serious challenge to egalitarianism."
The Chronicle of Higher Education October 23, 2007
Archbishop Tutu Calls for U. of St. Thomas to Reinstate Professor
Following an initial refusal to
let Archbishop Desmond Tutu speak at the University of St. Thomas, the Minnesota
institution has now invited him. Archbishop Tutu said he will, but only if the
college agrees to give a professor back her chairmanship.
University officials admitted to demoting Cris Toffolo, an associate
professor of political science, from her position as chair of the institution’s
program in justice and peace studies. They wouldn’t give details but said it had
to do with the situation concerning Archbishop Tutu.
The Rev. Dennis J. Dease, president of the university, announced his
recognition of the university’s mistake and
a formal invitation to the Nobel peace laureate two weeks ago in a letter to
students and members of the faculty and staff.
Meanwhile, faculty and staff members are rallying and gathering signatures
for a petition to reinstate Ms. Toffolo to her administrative job, but the
university seems to be holding firm, according to the Star
Tribune.—Anna Weggel
I confess that I did not follow last week's confirmation hearings of Michael Mukasey to be attorney general. But I am disturbed at his evasiveness on the question whether waterboarding constitutes torture. David Luban comments:
Aren’t we tired of evasion? The legal formula "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" is NOT an arcane lawyer’s term of art. It’s not an old Latin phrase or a medieval term like "replevin" or "assumpsit". All the black arts of the Bush torture lawyers have been bent to one end: pretending that there is something arcane and complicated about the words "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Something that only a brilliant lawyer with fancy credentials can figure out.
The fact is, there is no rich technical jurisprudence on the meaning of those words, and only scoundrels pretend that there is. The legal definition of torture is just twenty years old, and - to say the least - torture cases raising the issue of where to draw the boundary between "severe" and "not severe" aren’t popping up on the dockets of courts the world over like slip-and-fall cases. This isn’t a question for lawyers. This is a question of common sense. Let’s stop being ridiculous.
So: does waterboarding inflict severe suffering? If you want to do a quick, common-sense reality check, try this. Blow all the air out of your lungs. Then stare at your watch and try not to inhale for ninety seconds by the clock. Then take one quick half-breath and immediately do it again. Now imagine that you’re tied down while you’re doing it and water is pouring over your head and rolling up your nose. Or, if you’re really ambitious, get in the shower and turn it on and try the same hold-your-breath-with-no-air-in-your-lungs experiment with your head tilted up and the water pouring up your nose. Then decide for yourself whether it’s severe suffering.
Which is worse: having a President who obfuscates the clear meaning of terms in order to avoid accountability for personal moral failings, or having a President who does so in order to avoid accountability for morally flawed policy permitting the state's abuse of the human person? Whatever good the Bush Administration has done on certain issues of importance to human dignity, can anyone reasonably dispute that the lack of clarity and courage on the issue of torture is a black mark on its record?
Leading evangelical pollster The Barna Group has released a study showing that Christianity's reputation among young Americans is taking a serious hit, due in large part to its stance on homosexuality:
Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.
MOJ readers might be interested in this new blog: "The Immanent Frame" is run by the Social Science Research Council, and deals with "secularism, religion, and the public sphere." The first round of posts are focusing on Charles Taylor's new book, "A Secular Age."
