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, April 2, 2005

Hibbs on JP II and Truth

"He Lived the Splendor of Truth," writes philosopher Thomas Hibbs of the Holy Father.

Rick

On "Clinging to Life"

I encourage everyone to read Steve Bainbridge's post "Did JP II 'Cling to Life'?", cross-linked below. He corrects the absurd argument that the Pope clung to physical life in a way that belies his own theology of suffering and the Catholic understanding of death. Of course, we don't know what happened in the final hours, but until that time he displayed a faithful (in the literal sense of "faith-full") equanimity in suffering and the approach of death that we can only pray to emulate. My only question: what's wrong with Jack Miles?

--Mark

call for Articles: Villanova Conference on John Courtney Murray

CALL FOR ARTICLES

An Interdisciplinary Conference

THE LEGACY OF JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY FOR LAW AND POLITICS

Sponsored by the Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Villanova University School of Law

Friday, September 16, 2005 at Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania

Thge 2004 presidential election showed that the perpetual question of the nature of the relationship between the Catholic Church and American politics and law remains unresolved, and that interest in the question is as great as ever. This question has always had many dimensions. It is at once a problem in the political theory of liberal democracy, in the law of Church and State and in the relationship of law and morality, and a problem of conscience for both ordinary Catholics and Catholic politicians. John Courtney Murray, S.J., created a major synthesis that seemed to ease what were very sharp tensions between the triumphal Church of mid-century and the claims of liberal democracy. To what extent is Father Murray's resolution of the tensions of that era useful for us today, after the culture wars of the last forty years (particularly over abortion), the rise of the religious right as a political force, the split between "right" and "left" in the Church, the trend toward privatization of religion in American life, and the increased difficulty of claiming, as did Murray, that "We Hold These Truth" ? These and related questions will be explored in an interdisciplinary conference including legal academics, political theorists, philosophers, theologians and others. Papers presented at the conference will be considered for punlication in the Journal of Catholic Social Thought.

PAPER PROPOSALS. Please send paper proposals to Mark A. Sargent at [email protected] , or Villanova Law School, 299 N. Spring Mill Rd, Villanova PA 19085, by May 15, 2005.

John Paul II

Jpiicampo

May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed,
through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

Posts on JP II over at my personal blog:

Welcome to Tom Berg!

I'd like to welcome our newest blogista, Tom Berg of St. Thomas Law in Minnesota. He is the director of St Tommy's new Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Law, Thought and Policy, which is sponsoring the program next weekend on "The Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Good Society," about which Tom's colleague Greg Sisk posted below (Tom: I've almost figured out what I'm going to say on Saturday!). Tom's bio in the sidebar will provide the vital statistics, but I will note that Tom is a noted Church/State scholar, as well as a very thoughtful commentator on many aspects of religion in law, politics and culture. As our first non-Catholic blogista, he will add a dash of ecumenical spice to our discussions. I know that all the MOJers are delighted to have Tom aboard, and that our readers will benefit from his insights. A word of advice to Tom: hanging around with all these Catholics can be dangerous.... The phrase "all roads lead to Rome" has more than one meaning!

-- Mark

Friday, April 1, 2005

Murphy Institute Inaugural Conference: "The Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Good Society"

On Friday and Saturday, April 8 and 9, the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis will host its inaugural conference, “The Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Good Society.” The Murphy Institute, named for St. Thomas's longtime president and chancellor, is a collaboration of the Center for Catholic Studies and the School of Law. The inaugural conference will be held at the School of Law Building at 11th and Harmon Place in Minneapolis, beginning at 9 a.m. Friday the 8th and concluding with a mass at 4:30 p.m. Saturday the 9th.

The keynote addresses will be by James Gordley of the Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California-Berkeley, one of the world’s leading jurisprudence scholars (Friday morning); and John Finnis of the Universities of Oxford and Notre Dame, one of the world’s leading moral philosophers and the leading natural-law theorist (Saturday morning). There will also be plenary panels on two subjects of current interest and importance: “Sacrifice and the Common Good” (Friday afternoon) and “Disagreement and Dissent in a Good Society” (Saturday morning). In addition, there will be sixteen other speakers presenting papers in a number of concurrent sessions meeting Friday morning and Saturday afternoon. The various speakers will include scholars in law, theology, philosophy, political science, history, business, sociology, and other disciplines. Among those confirmed as penalists are Rev. John Coughlin, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School; Louis Gasper, Associate Professor of Management, and Director of the Center for Business Ethics, University of Dallas Graduate School of Management; Paul Griffiths, Arthur J. Schmitt Professor of Catholic Studies, University of Illinois-Chicago; Mark Sargent, Dean and Professor of Law, Villanova University Law School; Elizabeth Schiltz, Associate Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law; and Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Political Science, Marquette University.

The weekend events will also include a program of music from the University's Liturgical Choir (at lunchtime Friday) and a mass at noon Friday with music sung by the St. Thomas School of Law Choir.

Further information on the conference, including a detailed schedule of events, is available at http://www.stthomas.edu/law/centers/murphyinstitute/conferences.asp. There is no charge for the conference, but we ask that if you plan to attend any conference events, you take a few moments to register – especially if you wish to join us for lunch on either Friday or Saturday, or for a reception to be held for speakers and attendees at 4 p.m. Friday in the Law Building atrium. You may register at the conference web page, listed above.

Best wishes,

Professor Robert Kennedy, Center for Catholic Studies
Professor Thomas Berg, School of Law
Co-Directors, Terrence J. Murphy Institute

Stem Cell Gold Rush: Who Could Object?

For those interested in following the course of the stem cell research "gold rush" among states, I came across this website.  I did not realize that Maryland and Illinois are also well along the path toward funding embryonic stem cell research.  The debate occurring in the Illinois legislature lends some insight:

A Senate committee voted 7-4 to approve legislation Thursday that would put Illinois at the nation's forefront of stem-cell research.  The $1 billion proposal, an initiative of state comptroller Dan Hynes, would position Illinois only behind California in terms of funding for stem-cell studies. . . .

[Senator] Syverson also questioned whether Illinois would own the patent rights to cures researchers might discover while using state funds.

Hynes . . . assured the committee that all grant recipients would be signing patent and intellectual property agreements where the state would be sharing royalties.

If the measure is approved by both legislative chambers and the governor, a 2006 statewide referendum would ask voters to approve $1 billion bond issuance to fund the institute.

The proposal's sponsor, state Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, D-Evanston, said he's confident voters would support the measure because everyone has a loved one, neighbor or co-worker who suffers from a debilitating disease.

Right there we know all we need to know about the future prospects of embryonic stem cell research.  Who could possibly object to alleviating the suffering of our loved ones, especially when the patent-driven income stream is so tantalizing? 

Rob

Thursday, March 31, 2005

The Teaching Authority of the Magisterium

In his post below (per Greg Sisk), Bob Kennedy refers to the criteria specified in Lumen Gentium 25.  I thought that MOJ readers would like to see the criteria.  A crucial question:  How determinate are the criteria--in particular, with respect to moral teachings?  Another crucial question:  What moral teachings now in serious dispute among faithful Catholics--including faithful Catholic theologians--satisfy these criteria?  In any event, here is  Lumen Gentium 25:

25. Among the more important duties of bishops that of preaching the Gospel has pride of place.[39] For the bishops are heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct their conduct; and under the light of the Holy Spirit they make that faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation new things and old (cf. Mt. 13:52); they make it bear fruit and with watchfulness they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock (cf. 2 Tim. 4-14). Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.[40] This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.[41]

This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church's charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.[43] The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office. Now, the assent of the Church can never be lacking to such definitions on account of the same Holy Spirit's influence, through which Christ's whole flock is maintained in the unity of the faith and makes progress in it.[44]

Furthermore, when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit; and this revelation is transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all through the watchful concern of the Roman Pontiff himself- and through the light of the Spirit of truth it is scrupulously preserved in the Church and unerringly explained.[45] The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the seriousness of the matter, apply themselves with zeal to the work of inquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt expression to its contents;[46] they do not, however, admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.[47]

More on the Teaching Authority of the Church

I am pleased to pass along these comments from my colleague, Bob Kennedy, in the Catholic Studies program here at the University of St. Thomas:

"I have been reading some of the recent posts on the “Mirror of Justice” blog and I would like to offer a few quick comments on the discussion about the teaching authority of the Church. This discussion, I think, is likely to be widely renewed with the publication of Judge Noonan’s new book.

First of all, it is important that we keep in mind that there is not one question here but a whole set of questions. If we don’t articulate clearly what question we are discussing it is easy to become confused. I think this is happening with the MOJ posts.

The question of whether a faithful Catholic may dissent from some specific teaching of the Church (or the declarations of a bishop, for that matter) is quite distinct from the question of whether the Church may sometimes teach without the possibility of error. One might give an affirmative reply to both questions without contradiction.

I have not seen Judge Noonan’s new book but I believe I have read carefully everything he has written to date about the development of doctrine in moral theology. While he is rightly honored for a remarkable career, I think he is an unreliable guide on this issue.

The core of the issue has to do with the Church’s claim, defined at the First and Second Vatican Councils, that it enjoys a gift—the living guidance of the Holy Spirit—that guarantees that there have been, are, and will be occasions in which it does not and cannot err in what it teaches regarding faith and morality. To put it another way, the Church claims that sometimes it teaches with the authority of the Spirit so that what it teaches is true and can never afterwards be rightly repudiated or contradicted. Such doctrines are not subject to any form of development that would entail affirming a contradictory proposition.

The Second Vatican Council, in Lumen gentium 25, laid out a set of conditions that, when met, are a sure sign that a particular doctrine of the Church is genuinely taught under the guidance of the Spirit and therefore permanently irreformable. The doctrinal claims of the creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, for example, would meet these criteria, as would, say, many of the doctrines of Trent on the sacraments. To be very precise, I think it is true to say that the satisfaction of these criteria does not (magically) create irreformability but is instead a sure sign of the presence of the Spirit. The Spirit may also be present on other occasions when the Church teaches but it is when these conditions are met that the Church is supremely confident of that presence.

A corollary of this conviction is that when the Church teaches without meeting these conditions, the doctrine taught is, in principle, subject to reform or even repudiation. The Church does not claim that its doctrines are of two types, one undeniable and the other suspect. Rather, there are some occasions on which the Church teaches with utter conviction that it does so with the unerring guidance of the Spirit, and other occasions on which its convictions about the truth of what it teaches range from almost certainly true to probable.

With this in mind, we can think about the development of doctrine in moral theology, and here is where Judge Noonan, in my view, does not guide us as well as he could.

Is it the case that the Church has sometimes in the past taught some proposition, “X,” on moral matters and later repudiated that proposition by teaching “not X”? The simple answer is yes, but since we have already conceded that a good deal of what the Church teaches is not taught in circumstances that met the criteria of irreformability, this answer is not very interesting. Or, to put it another way, it would be interesting if the Church made the claim that it always teaches irreformably on moral matters, but it makes no such claim. The examples that Noonan adduces of substantive changes in doctrine show nothing more than reformable doctrines are sometimes reformed.

His analysis would be interesting if he could present an example of a doctrine that was taught under conditions satisfying the criteria of LG 25 but which was later denied by the Church under conditions satisfying the same criteria. Perhaps he does so in his new book, but in over 30 years of writing about this subject he has not yet provided such an example. Quite honestly, I do not believe such an example exists.

So where are we? Well, faithful Catholics ought to accept the claim that the Church enjoys the gift of teaching irreformably, but they need not accept a claim (which in any event the Church does not make) that it always teaches irreformably. Since relatively few doctrines have met the criteria of LG 25 (though many might meet them at some point in the future), quite a few doctrinal claims are susceptible to closer examination. Between obedient acceptance and stern dissent there can be quite a broad opportunity for humble, open-minded review.

Bob Kennedy
University of St Thomas
Department of Catholic Studies"

Colorado Puts Religion in its Place

Today's installment in our ongoing coverage of the intensifying battle over health care providers and moral agency comes from Colorado, where the legislature has passed a bill that would require Catholic hospitals to provide information and referrals to rape victims that would allow them to "avoid pregnancy." 

The Denver Post's article (thanks to Open Book) provides a provocative angle from the start, evidenced by the opening line: "Gov. Bill Owens faces a test of his Catholic faith."  Apparently, this bill could only be objectionable to a Catholic politician.  Potential concerns over institutional autonomy are simply distractions, it seems, from the primary obstacle: Catholic hang-ups about abortion and contraception.

The Post's strange phrasing, however, is nothing compared to the terms of the legislative debate:

[D]uring debate on the floor of the House Tuesday, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said that the bill was about medicine, not religion.

"We don't take rape victims to a church," he said. "We take them to a hospital (which has) ... a commitment to provide the best and most complete treatment to anyone who shows up."

Usually politicians who seek the privatization of religion aren't so explicit about it.  Representative Pommer makes it plain that it would be permissible for the Catholic Church to adhere to its beliefs inside the physical church building itself, but once we step outside those walls, all bets are off.

Rob