Monday, July 18, 2005
As many but by no means all readers of this blog know, in 1680 a man called John Baptiste de la Salle began to serve poor French children by providing the education no one else was even close to offering. La Salle's efforts didn't immediately win much support from the Church in France. But, in time, La Salle's initiative was institutionalized by the Church and granted the "permission" of the Crown, and it comes down to us as the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, more commonly known as the Christian Brothers, the largest order in the Catholic Church dedicated to education. La Salle himself was canonized in 1900, and fifty years later Pius XII named him Patron of All Teachers of Youth. The unique vow La Salle's Brothers take, even today, is this: "service to the poor through education."
The Christian Brothers' contribution to Catholic education in the U.S. over the last century and a half has been stunning. Today, however, the Brothers are facing extinction in this country, following the line already traced by so many other non-clerical orders. More immediately, the Brothers' efforts to serve the poor through education are foundering on the costs of running schools no longer indirectly subsidized by Brothers' working for free. (The disappearance of vocations to the Brothers has meant paying lay people, who do not take vows of poverty, salaries). Today's Brothers, along with their Partners in the La Sallian educational ministry, are struggling to find ways to provide Christian education to the poor.
In aid of finding such ways, the west coast province of the Brothers recently sponsored a colloquium on "school choice." The aim was to stimulate constructive discussion of new ways to allow the La Sallians to do their work of serving the poor through education. The colloquium made it possible for leading contributors to issues touching schools, family, children, and religion to talk together about the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. I was privileged to join in the colloquium, which was organized and beautifully executed by Tom Brady and Jack Coons. Among the contibutors to the dialogue were Rosemary Salomone, Jesse Choper, Goodwin Liu, Charles Glenn,Terry Moe, Howard Fuller, Jim Blew, Paul Dimond, Joe Viteritti, Steve Sugarman, Michael Guerra, Frank Kemerer, and Jack Coons.
One can hope that the colloquium's work will lead the Brothers and their Partners to undertake new efforts to teach not just the children in their classrooms, but, differently, all those who control the political conditions under which the Brothers and all other educators of the young operate. "School choice" is a divisive issue in American politics, but the following text of the Second Vatican Council (in its declaration Gravissimum educationis) seems to me, in light of the deliberations of the recent colloquium, grossly under-appreciated by American Catholics: "Parents, who have a primary and inalienable duty and right to the education of their children, should enjoy the fullest liberty in their choice of school. The public authority, therefore, whose duty it is to protect and defend the liberty of citizens, is bound according to the principles of distributive justice to ensure that public subsidies to schools are so allocated that parents are truly free to select their schools for children in accordance with their conscience." The Brothers embody commitment to these principles, and their witness is as profound as their service has been effective. But the Brothers and their Partners need help if they are to continue doing their work of service to the poor through education. And many others, too, of course, need systemic change if they are to continue their work of educating children whom the current system leaves under-served. The current educational monopoly blocks family and other efforts to see that children obtain the education that is indicated by their parents' conscience.
Today, only the rich (or otherwise lucky) can choose schools "in accordance with their conscience." Today, the Brothers and others are increasingly stymied in their efforts to serve those whom local property-tax revenues leave under-served. Distributive justice is nowhere to be seen in the land of education, and dramatially few Catholic voices are heard to say that education, too, must be justly distributed.
I'll soon post a draft of my paper from the recent colloquium. I would be most grateful if it would stimulate discussion of what, exactly, Catholics and others who want to see distributive justice done in education can do, now and in the coming seasons, to bring about change in the prevailing discourse and policy. Three centuries before the U.N. or Rome acknowledged the right of all children to education, La Salle announced the right and went to work for it. Sadly, the initiative he launched is now almost without means to do its work in the U.S. The Catholic leadership needs help on this.
Yale law prof Jack Balkin has a new book, "What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said," in which he asks eleven scholars to rewrite Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton using only materials available in 1973. Contributors include Anita Allen ( Penn), Akhil Amar (Yale), Teresa Stanton Collett (St. Thomas), Michael Stokes Paulsen (Minnesota), Jeffrey Rosen (George Washington University), Jed Rubenfeld (Yale), Reva Siegel (Yale), Cass Sunstein (Chicago), Mark Tushnet (Georgetown), and Robin West (Georgetown). Interestingly, none of the contributors adopted Roe's trimester framework.
Rob
Sunday, July 17, 2005
John Allen reports:
Sources indicate that the long-awaited Vatican document on the admission of homosexuals to seminaries is now in the hands of Pope Benedict XVI. The document, which has been condensed from earlier versions, reasserts the response given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2002, in response to a dubium submitted by a bishop on whether a homosexual could be ordained: "A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency, is not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
Andrew Sullivan reacts:
even if gay priests live up to all their responsibilities, even if they embrace celibacy wholly, even if they faithfully serve the Church, they would still be deemed beneath being priests, serving God, or entering seminaries. Why? Because, in pope Benedict's own words, they are "objectively disordered," indelibly morally sick in some undefined way, and so unfit, regardless of their actions, to serve God or His people. It is no longer a matter of what they do or not do that qualifies or disqualifies them for the priesthood; it is who they are. Not since the Jesuits' ban on ethnic Jews, regardless of their conversion or Christian faith, has the Church entertained such pure discrimination. The insult to gay Catholics is, of course, immeasurable. It is also an outrageous attack on the good, great and holy work so many gay men and lesbians have performed in the Church from its very beginnings.
MoJ's exploration of the issue can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Rob
Having just viewed Mark’s commentary on Marci Hamilton’s new book, I would like to join those who wish to read her interesting and provocative work. As a priest and believer and lawyer and teacher of the law, I am not sure that I would want to merge so quickly and without further detailed study her work in clerical (or for that matter anybody elses’s) sexual abuse with matters dealing with freedom of religion and the First Amendment. It will be difficult to get a copy of her book here in Rome, but, all things are possible. I would like to point out to MOJ readers that the Boerne/Flores case had a rather interesting outcome. The city won before the Supreme Court. When it did, it then told Archbishop Flores that he could go ahead with the renovations to the Church. This subsequent action in itself raises serious Constitutional questions, but like the absence of any review in the NYT of the Hamilton book, this fact seems to have escaped attention as well. Nevertheless, I would very much like to hear her perspective and to read her book, but I find it intriguing that American Atheists, Inc., amongst other like-minded groups, consider Prof. Hamilton to be a heroine for their causes. For a long time I have been troubled by the “accommodation” view. So, perhaps I have something in common with the author on this point. But having met some of the good people of the San Antonio Archdiocese in Rome a year after the Supreme Court issued its decision and learning from them the degree to which outsiders, including Prof. Hamilton, were telling them how they could exercise their faith, I am troubled by her understanding of the meaning of the First Amendment. Well, now, I just have to get a hold of a copy of her book… RJA sj
Missed in all the hoopla over Noah Feldman's new book (just how did his literary agent get the cover of the NYT Magazine?) is Marci Hamilton's important and provocative new book "God vs. The Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law" (Cambridge University Press). The book is actually selling very well, despite no NYT cover, and should be noted by MOJ readers. Marci is the distinguished constitutionalist and law & religion scholar at Cardozo, who is familiar from speaking on many distinguished panels and as a leading litigator in Church-State cases. I have long admired Marci for the sophistication and integrity of her views, and she has been a welcome guest here at Villanova. Marci has long been somewhat unusual: a religious person who is a strict (and passionate) non-accomodationist. Her book catalogs the many types of harm that religion can inflict on children and others, and she argues for expansive regulation of conduct associated with religious belief, a diminished scope of judicially-established constitutional protection and a greater role for legislative determination of the consistency of religious conduct and the public good. She draws on her experience in RFRA litigation and as a advocate on behalf of the victims of clerical sexual abuse. Last Thursday held a booksigning and presentation at one of our local bookstores, where she had to endure questioning from three Villanova law profs (Kathy Brady, Pat Brennan and myself) each of whom had reservations about her thesis. Marci handled herself with her usual aplomb. MOJ would be interested in hearing from those who have read her book and would like to have comments posted, so please feel free to email them to me. If we get a thread going, I will invite Marci to chipin. Rick will be reviewing "God vs the Gavel" along with Feldman's book in an up coming issue of Commonweal.
--Mark
A few days ago I posted on some interesting programs scheduled for the AALS Annual Meeting in New Orleans in January. I overlooked the most interesting programs, not knowing that MOJ's own Rick Garnett (now lotus-eating in the Rockies) had a hand in organizing them for the Law and Religion Section. They are each panels on the topics that have bulked large on MOJ since its inception. The first program is scheduled for Satuday January 7 at 1:30pm on "The (Re)turn to History in Religion Clause Law and Scholarship," and features an all-star cast of Noah Feldman, Steve Green, Marci Hamilton, Doug Laycock and Steve Smith. On Sunday, January 8, at 9:00 am, the Section will sponsor another distinguished panel discussing "Religion, Division, and the Constitution," featuring David Campbell, Step Feldman, our Rick, Fred Gedicks and Legal Theory's Larry Solum. Maybe Rick will give us some details when he returns from vacation.
I've also got more details on the program entitled "A Conversation About Abortion," sponsored by the Section on Law and Communitarian Studies on Friday, January 6 at 4:00pm. Turns out that friend-of-MOJ and law and religion scholar Bob Cochrane not only organized the program but is the Chair of that new section. The program revisits the question of whether it is now possible to have a thoughtful, meaningful debate about abortion, something that has long been missing in the public forum (and in the AALS, I should add). Bob has put together an extraordinarily talented and balanced set of panelists: Elizabeth R. Mensch, co-author of "The Politics of Abortion: Is Abortion Debatable?"; Jack Balkin, of Balkinization and editor of "What Roe Should Have Said" (forthcoming 05); and Teresa Collett, who needs no introduction here. A must see, IMHO.
I should also add that plans are afoot for organizing this year's program sponsored by the Law Professors Christian Fellowship and Lumen Christi, to be held concurrent to the AALS in New Orleans. Some will remember last year's program on "Taking Christian Legal Thought Seriously," held in San Francisco. Bob Cochrane, John Breen, John Nagle and yours truly are invioved in the planning. I'll post details once the plans are finalized.
--Mark
Friday, July 15, 2005
Reader Antonio Manetti offers these thoughts in response to my earlier post criticizing the New York Times editorial on the decision to install a Genesis display at the Tulsa Zoo:
It strikes me that the Times editorial, far from poking fun at Tulsans in general, was ridiculing those thin-skinned folk who are offended whenever they perceive a threat to their favorite religious account of creation. Apparently, many citizens of Tulsa had the sense to object to such nonsense. Good for them.
If you are implying that the inclusion of the Genesis account in science museums and similar public venues is inappropriate because these institutions are ill equipped deal with such matters, then I agree. I'd go a step further and suggest that such an inclusion opens the door for a scopes-like legal circus whose likely outcome would be the requirement to include other religious accounts of creation as well. Would you want Genesis to share equal billing with those? More importantly, of course, attempting to juxtapose Evolution with Genesis does both a disservice by failing to recognize that the fundamental truths expressed by Science and Religion are incommensurate.
As to evolution's 'singularity' -- it seems clear from the text of the article that such singularity comes not from the exclusion of or hostility to religion but because evolution is the only scientifically valid account. Not an unimportant distinction in my view.
That brings me to what I believe is the real issue -- the implicit fear you refer to. One aspect is the fear you ascribe to the editorial writers of disturbing the societal consensus due to science with the divergent views of religion. Although I'm not as certain of that as you seem to be, I believe there's another element of fear at work -- namely the fear on the part of the religious establishment that, in their heart of hearts, people have more faith in science (and scientists) than religion. After all, science delivers the goods much of the time while prayers often go unanswered. When a scourge strikes, we may ask God for deliverance, but we set the scientists to work (evolution and all) and have faith that they’ll save us once again as they have in the past.
The fact is that, in practice, people worship science more than religion. Instead of combating this kind of idolatry using the laws, courts and the coercive power of the state to marginalize valid science it would contribute to the public discourse to focus on the faustian bargain through which we often enjoy the fruits of science at the expense of religion’s transcendent values.
Thoughts? Is the law, as Antonio suggests, obfuscating the real tension at work in society's stance toward science and religion?
Rob
