The Daily Mail reports: "A move to allow town halls to force new faith schools to offer up to a quarter of places to pupils from other religions has been blocked by peers. They voted 119 to 37 to reject former Tory education secretary Lord Baker's amendment to the Education and Inspections Bill." More coverage of the proposal -- and of the Catholic mobilization against it -- is here.
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
Cheers for the House of Lords
A warning about faith and politics
Over at the Commonweal blog, J. Peter Nixon has a post that, it seems to me, all of us who (a) follow politics and (b) try to follow Christ might take to heart. Here is a bit:
In their statement Faithful Citizenship, the
bishops argue that participation in the political process is a “moral obligation.” This may be true, but there are moral dangers here too. You can get so caught up with a cause, a candidate, or a party that you start shaving small bits off the truth and sanding down the sharp edges of the Gospel. U.S.
In an election where issues of great moral import—abortion, war, torture, poverty, marriage—are at stake, it may seem absurd to suggest that there is something more important than who wins this November or how these issues are dealt with in the months to come. But there is. First and foremost, we need to be faithful and we need to be truthful. We need to preach the fullness of the Gospel, even if—perhaps especially if—it embarrasses our comrades and gives comfort to our opponents. We need to remain committed to the search for truth, even if the truth we discover undermines our arguments. We need to trust enough in eternal victory to risk temporal defeat.
The Future of Social Democracy
An interesting post, by Tyler Cowen at Crooked Timber: "Is Social Democracy a viable model for the European future?" Here is a bit:
For all its virtues, social democracy stands in danger unless Europe can boost its rates of economic growth. Even if some of the more radical social democrats may feel that “people already have enough,” it is hard to imagine Europe persisting and flourishing if it ends up as the “poor man out” and in a state of relative impoverishment. If nothing else, the most talented Europeans would migrate elsewhere. There are already 400,000 EU researchers working in the United States, and it is not clear when they plan on returning.
Most of Western Europe experienced a long postwar boom, lasting at least through the late 1970s (the timing is later for Spain). This was sustained by rebuilding, an enormous growth in world trade, and by lower levels of government intervention than we see today. But welfare payments rose, taxes rose, labor markets became less flexible, interventions favored insiders to a greater degree, regulations were cartelized, and the entrepreneurial spirit ebbed.
Western European per capita income is now about 30 percent below that of the United States and I see the gap widening rather than closing. It is common for the United States rate of productivity growth to be twice as high as that of the core European nations[.] . . .
. . . Most European birthrates are under the 1.5 mark and it is quite possible that many national populations will be cut in half by 2050. Along the way there will be too many retirees per worker and current European tax rates – already among the highest in the world – will have to rise. Since older populations also tend to be less productive, it is hard to see how Western Europe might reassume world economic leadership or even hold its current relative ground. Nor has the EU, for all its benefits, proven itself a good mechanism for making economic policy; farm subsidies are over 45 percent of the EU budget.
Part of the demographic problem, of course, is that the real standard of living in Western Europe is remarkably high. Western European women have learned how much fun they can have, living in Europe and traveling abroad, when they are not tied down with four children. The extreme secularism of Western Europe – a philosophy which I share and indeed cherish – also promotes small families. Religious exhortations to have more children, combined with a child-friendly church culture, do in fact raise birth rates. In both economic and cultural terms, Western Europe is not investing enough in its future.
Creation and the Imago Dei
Responding to John Derbyshire's claim, to which Rob linked, that "[t]he idea that we are made in God’s image implies we are a finished product," philosopher and MOJ-friend John O'Callaghan writes:
[T]he doctrine of the imago dei does not imply that we are a finished product. The very notion of being an “image” of anything implies that it is not identical with that of which it is an image. Thus it differs to some extent from that of which it is an image, and that difference allows for growth in the image. . . . And at the level of individual human beings, both Augustine and Aquinas, the figures I am most familiar with, taught that we are always seeking to become greater images of God, that every human being can corrupt the image, but can also refine the image.
In addition, the doctrine does not imply that we are the only creatures that are images of God. . . . [Aquinas] claimed that not only is it the case that angels are images of God, but also that they are greater images of God than human beings are. Whether we believe in angels or not, the larger theological point is that nothing in Catholic faith entails that only human beings are images of God. Both Augustine and Aquinas taught that all creatures are likenesses of God. ‘Imago’ had for them a technical sense—an imago was a likeness that held its likeness in virtue of being an intelligent creature. From which it follows, that all creatures are in fact likenesses of God, and that any intelligent creature will be an imago dei, not just human beings. In other words, nothing of Catholic faith implies that human beings in any stage of development are the only possible images or likenesses of God.
UPDATE: Bryan McGraw -- a political theorist at Pepperdine -- adds:
It’s worth noting that in the “First” Creation story (Gen. 1) God doesn’t actually say that man is “good” – he only says that he looks at everything he has created and that it is “very good.” So why doesn’t God say – like he does with the birds and the beasts – that his creation of man is “good”? Leon Kass, in his book on Genesis, suggests that it’s because the term “good” as it’s used there means something like complete or whole and that man in the garden isn’t complete or maybe finished. Now, I think Kass is off base with his overly Rousseauian interpretation of man in the garden (basically, we’re just dumb happy brutes) but when coupled with the story of the Fall, I’m not sure at all that the text would itself support a claim that somehow we were made Imago Dei and that was it.
response to Professor Stohr
I appreciate the response of Professor Stohr. I think that there are at least two justifications to support salpingostomy and methotrexate. The first would be through the denial of a moral absolute (that it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being) on the ground that it would be permissible to appeal to the "totality" of the actor's intent or to the further or remote good intent (preserving the mother's future futility). I was responding to this sort of argument, although perhaps I was being overly hasty in interpreting Michael and Rob to be making this sort of argument. The second argument, which Professor Stohr notes, is that salpingostomy doesn't involve intentional killing. This argument has been made by those who don't deny moral absolutes. From reading Bill May's discussion of this, I understand that Grisez and Boyle and other moral theologians (usually placed in the orthodox camp) make this argument. This second argument invovles the claim that the actor's intent is not to kill. We have discussed this before in the context of craniotomy. I tend to agree with May that it is proper to view a salpingostomy as a direct act of killing since this procedure is lethal and is performed on the fetus not for its own good but for the good of the mother. Perhaps Professor Stohr could explain the thinking behind this second argument.
Thanks to Rob and Michael and Professor Stohr and Julian Velasco for their contributions to this discussion.
Richard M.
Response from a Reader
Thanks to Professor Karen Stohr (Georgetown, Philosophy), who sent this e-mail:
In response to Professor Myers, one might also argue (as I would) that while intentional killing is always wrong, salpingostomy and methotrexate do not count as instances of intentional killing. I think this is easier to defend from a philosophical standpoint than the position you take below:
"Given that no matter which of the two paths I take Z is going to die, and given that it is morally permissible for me to take action A, why should we accept that it is morally impermissible for me to kill Z intentionally, thereby achieving something that is morally worthy at no cost to Z, who is going to die no matter which choice I make?"
This position leaves open the possibility that if Z, very soon to die from some incurable disease, is a perfect organ match for Y, it would be permissible to kill Z so as to take his organ to save Y. I would rather avoid this implication!
ectopic pregnancy and moral reasoning
I think the basic disagreement here is over a broader question of moral reasoning. The basic point I was trying (albeit not too clearly) was that there are moral absolutes. There are exceptionless moral norms that must be honored even if the actor has a good motive or has some further intention (sometimes described as remote or ulterior) that is good. So, persons have a right not to be killed, even if they are going to die soon and even if their killing would result in some good effects (relieve their suffering and the suffering of their family, save money, etc.). So, in the questions put by Michael Perry, I'd say that the fetus has a right not to be killed (this violates the exceptionless moral norm described by May, and by JP II in Veritatis Spelndor and Evangelium Vitae, that there should be no intentional killing of an innocent human person), even if everything else he says is true. That act is a violation of human dignity, even if the fetus would soon die or might die from other methods (removal of the fallopian tube).
The stakes here are quite high (this broader issue of moral reasoning) even though the ectopic pregnancy instance is a hard case. Kelly Bowring describes this well in his article, where he mentions that his wife was faced with an ectopic pregnancy that was treated by salpingectomy. I think his wife has gone on to have 5-6 children since that time.
Richard M.
Trick or Treat
Here's an interesting Beliefnet piece about the Catholic origins of Halloween. I was particularly intrigued to learn about the origins of "Trick or Treat":
"Treat or treat" is perhaps the oddest and most American addition to Halloween and is the unwilling contribution of English Catholics.
During the penal period of the 1500s to the 1700s in England, Catholics had no legal rights. They could not hold office and were subject to fines, jail and heavy taxes. It was a capital offense to say Mass, and hundreds of priests were martyred.
Occasionally, English Catholics resisted, sometimes foolishly. One of the most foolish acts of resistance was a plot to blow up the Protestant King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. This was supposed to trigger a Catholic uprising against the oppressors. The ill-conceived Gunpowder Plot was foiled on November 5, 1605, when the man guarding the gunpowder, a reckless convert named Guy Fawkes, was captured and arrested. He was hanged; the plot fizzled.
November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, became a great celebration in England, and so it remains. During the penal periods, bands of revelers would put on masks and visit local Catholics in the dead of night, demanding beer and cakes for their celebration: trick or treat!
Guy Fawkes Day arrived in the American colonies with the first English settlers. But by the time of the American Revolution, old King James and Guy Fawkes had pretty much been forgotten. Trick or treat, though, was too much fun to give up, so eventually it moved to October 31, the day of the Irish-French masquerade. And in America, trick or treat wasn’t limited to Catholics.
I'm a bit of a Guy Fawkes Day junkie, probably because of this guy.
All Saints Day
Happy All Saints Day! Here's the Pope:
The indissoluble link between the Church and sainthood was remembered today by Benedict XVI in a quotation by Alessandro Manzoni. "Today," said the pope in the words of the author of the novel 'The Betrothed', "the Church is celebrating its dignity as mother of saints, the image of the supernal city," and added: "it manifests its beauty as the immaculate spouse of Christ, source and model of every saintliness." To explain the meaning underlying All Saints Day, celebrated this morning in the Vatican with a solemn mass, the pope chose to quote St Bernard. "Our saints," he said, using the words of the saint, "do not need our honours and nothing is granted them by our worship. I must confess that, when I think of the saints, I burn with grand desires." For the pope, this means looking "at the luminous example of the saints," to "reawaken in ourselves the grand desire for sainthood." "We are all called upon to follow a life as saints," said Pope Ratzinger, stressing that "to be a saint does not necessarily mean carrying out extraordinary actions and deeds, nor having some type of special charisma." But, he went on, "it is only necessary to serve Jesus, to listen to him and follow him without losing hear when faced with difficulties." .
Imago Dei and Natural Selection
John Derbyshire offers some provocative reflections on his own journey away from Christianity. (HT: Volokh) Many of his points are great conversation-starters. Here's one:
I can report that the Creationists are absolutely correct to hate and fear modern biology. Learning this stuff works against your faith. To take a single point at random: The idea that we are made in God’s image implies we are a finished product. We are not, though. It is now indisputable that natural selection has been going on not just through human prehistory, but through recorded history too, and is still going on today, and will go on into the future, presumably to speciation, either natural or artificial. So which human being was made in God’s image: the one of 100,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? 1,000 years ago? The one of today? The species that will descend from us? All of those future post-human species, or just some of them? And so on. The genomes are all different. They are not the same creature. And if they are all made in God’s image somehow, then presumably so are all the other species, and there’s nothing special about us at all.
Now of course there are ways to finesse that point — intellectuals can cook up an argument for anything, and religious intellectuals, who cut their teeth on justifying some wildly improbable stuff, are especially ingenious — but the cumulative effect of dozens of factlets like this is devastating to the notion that human beings are a special creation. And without that notion, traditional religious belief is holed below the water line.
I've often wrestled with a similar question: at what point of human evolution did our fallen nature kick in? Was the first human ancestor who was capable of deliberate decision-making sinful in that decision-making? Or is sin such a uniquely "human" endeavor that it only arose among creatures who looked pretty much like we do? If so, is it sensible to think of "the Fall" as occurring at a particular point in time or is it more properly considered as a disposition that unfolded gradually across the evolutionary landscape? Can anyone recommend any resources on these questions?
Rob
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
