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.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Health-Care Concerns and "Secular Humanism"

Over at First Things, Peter Leithart offers a diagnosis of why Barack Obama promises a larger-minded politics and comes up with nothing newer or more radical than improving the health-care system:

In his bracing little book on Secularization, Edward Norman, chancellor of York Minster, describes the conflict between Christianity and what he calls Secular Humanism by contrasting their attitudes toward suffering. Christianity “was founded in an act of expiatory pain, has regarded human suffering as not only inseparable from the nature of life on earth, as a matter of observable fact, but also as a necessary condition in spiritual formation.” Christians seek, of course, to alleviate suffering, but God, not human suffering, is the center of the moral universe.

Secular Humanism, by contrast, does not believe in sin and cannot see how any good could emerge from human suffering. Humanity is perfectible, and if we will only work together we will be able to remove “anything that can be represented as an affront or an impediment to the painless existence of men and women.” . . .

This is a box outside of which Senator Obama cannot think, and this is why his agenda looks so thoroughly Clintonesque. Here’s a suggestion: If he wants to transform American politics, perhaps his next fund-raising letter should say something along the lines of “Pain may be good for you.”

There's a salutary reminder in this post about suffering and the human condition before God.  However, I find the one-sided political jibes off-putting --though they're surely inadvertent -- since I don't see the other side ever saying "Pain may be good for you" either.  Health saving accounts and medical-malpractice reforms are still an effort to do something about health-care costs.  More, I assume that Rev. Leithart would equally condemn the administration's failure to call for any economic sacrifice from Americans, especially the wealthiest, during the last few years of war?  That kind of sacrifice might be even more deeply grounded in Christian theology because it would be sacrifice for the purpose of service (solidifying the next generation's financial future), rather than suffering merely from the circumstances that fall down upon one's life.  I agree that the latter is something all of us need to be more willing to accept --as training in accepting God's will -- but a significant part of that is training for accepting God's command, when it comes, that we sacrifice or suffer in the service of others. 

I also don't know where Rev. Leithart draws the line between proper Christian efforts "to alleviate suffering," which he acknowledges, and "secular humanist" efforts to escape pain altogether.  (I don't think that saying "God is the moral center" is quite enough.)  Without that line, it's hard to evaluate his argument about efforts to reform health care.  All this focus on health care may indeed reflect an idolatry of the body to some extent.  But it also reflects to a significant extent a recognition of the costs that untreated or poorly-treated sickness can impose on mind, spirit, and vocation as well as body.  Concerning the uninsured, consider John Paul II's focus on "those who do not succeed in realizing their basic human vocation because they are deprived of essential goods" including health care, Sollicitudo rei Socialis para. 28.  And concerning even the middle class, consider Elizabeth Warren's findings about the contribution of medical costs to bankruptcies, with all the personal and family stresses and dislocations (including divorces) that financial catastrophes cause.

Tom   

Reno on Bloom and the Catholic University

At the First Things blog, Rusty Reno has some thoughts, occasioned by the 20th anniversary of Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind, about Catholic universities:

Leaders in Catholic education should revisit Bloom’s spiritual diagnosis. To a large extent, a similar worry about passionless, commitment-free inquiry dominates John Paul II’s teaching on education, philosophy, and the dignity of reason. . . .

Over the years, I have observed that most Catholic deans, provosts, and presidents ignore or even contribute to the slide of higher education into soulless relativism. Most take the integrity of reason and the truth claims of the Catholic Church for granted, even as it slowly declines into the standard, amoral, post-cultural agenda of secular education. Some actively undermine the relationship of the university to the Church in order to deploy the university as part of the liberal Catholic resistance to the conservative trends in the larger Church. Others imagine that multicultural educational ideologies rightly express a Catholic commitment to social justice and the preferential option for the poor.

Every Catholic university has its own story. But the basic dynamic tends to be the same. For all their good intentions, most Catholic administrators are hopelessly confused and inconsistent when it comes to the goals of education. Just talk to a Catholic dean or college president. They do not want non-Catholic students to be “uncomfortable,” and they want everyone to feel “included.” Then, not a minute or two later, the conversation shifts, and the very same proponents of inclusion will insist that we need to challenge our students with critical thought and diverse perspectives. Hello! You can’t have it both ways—making students comfortable and challenging them.

Of course, what most Catholic educators usually mean is that a professor should challenge the traditional beliefs of Catholic students and challenge any conservative political or economic beliefs that students are foolish enough to expose. This critical project, which is conveniently well-coordinated with the agenda of secular education, has the desired effect of making administrators and faculty feel good about their great vocation as critical educators while—miracle of miracles—making anybody who disagrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church feel comfortable and welcome.

The students are not stupid. Those with traditional and conservative convictions quickly realize that the deck is stacked against them, and they learn to separate their religious and moral and political convictions from the classroom. They remove their souls from the university. The non-Catholic students realize that few faculty create a pedagogical environment where Catholic teaching can make a claim on their intellects and lives. They relax, gratified that they can get an education without having to put any energy into arguing against and resisting. Their souls are left quiescent and unchallenged. What Bloom feared becomes the atmosphere of Catholic education: the question of how we should live fails to enter into the center of university life.

Maybe I’m simple-minded, but I don’t think the solution is all that difficult to understand. Catholic universities should challenge students—with the full force of the Catholic tradition. A truth that presses us toward holiness is a far greater threat to naive credulities and bourgeois complacency than anodyne experiences of “difference” or easy moves of “critique,” which bright students master and mimic very quickly.

I don’t think that the lectern should be turned into a pulpit, but the soul of Catholic education requires classrooms haunted by the authority of the Church and the holiness of her saints. That was the actual, experienced effect of the old system, when large numbers of faculty were priests and nuns.

Every culture demands and prohibits, encourages and exhorts. The desire to have a university free from demands, a classroom sanitized and unhaunted, is nothing short of desiring an education free from culture. Many professors and administrators today desire this kind of education. For multiculturalism, “diversity,” and disembodied “critical thinking” add up to an imaginary, spectral meta-culture that is, by definition, no culture at all. And as I have said, students are not stupid. They realize that an education free from the commanding truths of culture is an invitation to live as clever, well-trained, and socially productive animals; and like all good students, they live up to the expectations.

Today the single greatest goal of Catholic universities should be to withdraw this debasing invitation. All students are well served by an educational atmosphere shaped by the demands of Catholic culture, demands that bear down upon us with the frightening force of divine commandments. For the dangerous commitments of truth and not the cool dispassion of critique open minds.

Any implications, do we think, for the enterprise(s) of Catholic law schools?

"You Can't Hurry Love"

In this paper, Prof. Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern) argues that "antidiscrimination provisions for gay people should have religious objections."  (He is responding, in this paper, to Prof. Chai Feldblum's article, "Moral Conflict and Liberty.")  Well worth a read.

Justice Thomas Talks about Holy Cross College ...

... (here), and about affirmative action, his own life development, and (briefly, near the end) Catholic higher education.  He gave the unusual interview to a Business Week reporter working on a story about Rev. John Brooks, former Holy Cross president, who as a dean then was a mentor to Thomas.

Tom

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

If Jesus married and had a son, does that mean that ...

... God had a grandson?  Click here and follow the link to The Daily Show:  dotCommonweal.

Women, Work, and Family

ZENIT yesterday distributed an article called "Women, Work, and Family" by Father John Flynn, which began with this description of a report just issued in England:

ROME, MARCH 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Working mothers face significant discrimination in Britain's work force. This was one of the conclusions of a report published Feb. 28 by the Equalities Review, an independent body of the United Kingdom. The report: "Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review," found that women with young children are the most discriminated against at work.

In fact, women with young children face more discrimination in the workplace than disabled people or those from ethnic minorities, noted the BBC in an article on the report published the day of its release.

This report is apparently receiving much attention in the British press, as well as this reaction from the Government: 

A call for more attention to women's needs, whether they work at the top or not, was made by Lord Layard, a Labor Party peer appointed by the British government to investigate the state of childhood.

Well, here on this side of the Atlantic, we may lack the ability to appoint peers or Lords to investigate, but we can convene conferences.  Like the Law Journal symposium on "Restructuring the Workplace to Accommodate Family Life" to be held at UST Law in Minneapolis next Friday, March 16.  Featuring keynote talks by Sr. Prudence Allen (""Analogy, Law, and the Workplace:  Complementarity, Conscience, and the Common Good") and Professor Joan Williams ( "Opt Out or Pushed Out: The Real Story of Women and Work") and panels including MOJers Susan Stabile ("Can Secular Feminists and Catholic Feminists Work Together to Ease the Conflict Between Work and Family?") and Michael Scaperlanda ("Immigration, the Family, and the Workplace:  A Critical Exploration of Possible Reforms").

Volokh on Colson on Biological Essentialism

Chuck Colson devotes his latest column to the case of Isabella Miller-Jenkins, a case in which "a judge will soon decide whether a woman with no biological or adoptive ties to Isabella can legally be declared her mother."  The case is a thorny custody dispute stemming from the break-up of a civil union, which Colson uses to make a broader point:

How is it possible that laws and court procedures could have become so dangerously fantasy-based? Actually, we should not be surprised. Many modern parents have unwittingly been collaborating with the process for years. The Washington Post tells us how Judge Cohen explained it: "[C]onsider the situation of a heterosexual couple in which an infertile husband agrees for his wife to be artificially inseminated with donor sperm." In such a case, the judge stated, the husband would be presumed to have parental rights even though someone else had actually fathered the child.

It all ties together. Heterosexual couples have tacitly approved this practice of including a silent third partner in a marriage to produce a child. And then it makes it very difficult to cry foul when homosexuals do the same thing.

Isabella’s plight shows us the tragic consequences of rejecting the biblical view of marriage, which provides for one man and one woman in the union to raise the child. Sure, there are extraordinary circumstances, and adoption is possible. But the norm is the norm, and the law has always recognized the natural moral order.

Eugene Volokh wonders:

How did this supposedly religiously motivated fixation on the child's biological relatedness to both parents come about? Does the Bible indeed somewhere condemn, explicitly or by strong implication, the use of donated sperm? I know the stories of Hagar and Tamar in the Old Testament discuss what some people do when they can't have children naturally with their spouses (because of the wife's infertility, the husband's death, or the husband's refusal to impregnate the wife); but I take it that the moral message of the stories is not necessarily clear.

Is there something elsewhere that takes such a biologically essentialist view, to the point of prohibiting the use of donated sperm, and treating adoption as grudgingly tolerated in "extraordinary" cases? (I'm not speaking just of Catholic natural law reasoning; Colson is a Protestant who, I take it, focuses much more on the words of the Bible.)

THE SAD SAGA CONTINUES ...

(For earlier installments, click here and here.)

New York Times
March 6, 2007

Former Prosecutor Says Departure Was Pressured
By ERIC LICHTBLAU 

WASHINGTON, March 5 — The former federal prosecutor in Maryland said Monday that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state’s governor, a Republican.

“There was direct pressure not to pursue these investigations,” said the former prosecutor, Thomas M. DiBiagio. “The practical impact was to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations.”

Mr. DiBiagio, a controversial figure who clashed with a number of Maryland politicians, had never publicly discussed the reasons behind his departure. But he agreed to an interview with The New York Times because he said he was concerned about what he saw as similarities with the recent firings of eight United States attorneys.

As in those cases, there are conflicting accounts of the circumstances that led to Mr. DiBiagio’s ouster. The Justice Department disputes his version.

His office had been looking into whether associates of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had improperly funneled money from gambling interests to promote legalized slot machines in Maryland. Mr. DiBiagio said that several prominent Maryland Republicans had pressed him to back away from the inquiries and that one conversation had so troubled him that he reported it to an F.B.I. official as a threat.

But he said that the Justice Department had offered little support and that that made it “impossible for me to stay.”

Several current and former officials in the Baltimore office said Mr. DiBiagio voiced concerns in 2004 that the corruption inquiries were jeopardizing his career, a view that they shared.

[To read the whole article, click here.]

Another article in today's NYT reports:

One of the dismissed United States attorneys who are expected to testify is David C. Iglesias, who was removed as the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico. Mr. Iglesias is expected to describe in detail the phone calls he received last year from Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and an unidentified Republican lawmaker, Congressional aides said.

Mr. Iglesias has said the calls were intended to press him into bringing indictments that would embarrass Democrats before the November 2006 elections. The case centered on an investigation of a kickback scheme related to a construction project involving a former Democratic official. Mr. Domenici has acknowledged making a call to the prosecutor but has said he did not press Mr. Iglesias.

Mr. Domenici is one of the three Republican members of the state’s Congressional delegation. One of the other lawmakers, Representative Steve Pearce, has said he did not contact Mr. Iglesias. The remaining Republican, Representative Heather A. Wilson, told The Washington Post on Monday that she had spoken with Mr. Iglesias but said she had not pressured him.

Also on Monday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked the Senate Committee on Ethics whether Mr. Domenici violated Senate rules when he contacted Mr. Iglesias. The group noted that Mr. Domenici made the call shortly before the November elections, in which control of the House came down to a handful of competitive races.

Carol C. Lam, who was removed as United States attorney in San Diego, said in testimony prepared for her appearance in the House that “in most of our cases, we were given little or no information about the reason for the request for our resignations.” Ms. Lam said in her written testimony that she would not speculate on the reasons.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who has led the Senate investigation into the removals, said the ousted prosecutors wanted to talk about their experiences. “We have spent decades trying to insulate U.S. attorneys from the political process,” Mr. Schumer said, “and it looks more and more like all that has been undone in the last few years.”

[To see the whole article, click here.]

Monday, March 5, 2007

Marriage & Class

The Washington Post reports:

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. The working class and the poor, meanwhile, increasingly steer away from marriage, while living together and bearing children out of wedlock.

A trip through Lexington

This morning I traveled through the town of

Lexington

, MA on my way to the doctor’s office. As has been previously noted by several MOJ contributors, this is the community in which a group of parents unsuccessfully sued the public school system over the mandatory use of the Linda de Haan/Stern Nijland book “King & King.” I have examined this book and its sequel, “King & King & Family.” I sympathize with the parents who brought the suit. In spite of a recent editorial by the Boston Globe which applauds the dismissal of the suit and tacitly approves the use of the “King & King” book in the diversity education of kindergarten and first and second grade children [HERE], the Court’s opinion on the limitation of parents’ rights is deeply troubling as is the Globe editorial. As I previously mentioned, it seems that the

U.S.

’s international legal obligations regarding parents’ rights and education of the children are irrelevant. Also problematic is the underlying view that the court’s decision promotes rather than restricts the concept of equality for all. The first volume, “King & King” tackles the marriage issue. The second volume, “King & King & Family” takes care of the adoption issue by same-sex couples. The understanding of equality posed by these two books (perhaps others are in the works by Ms. de Hann and Ms. Nijland), is flawed. More discussion is needed on this important issue, and I hope to be working on it during the coming academic year in a series of essays examining the question: what is equality? From my perspective, the Globe and the de Haan/Nijland team have presented a mistaken view of what equality is. With God’s help, I hope to offer another view that may be of interest to MOJ contributors and readers.    RJA sj