A letter to the editor in the January 16, 2005 edition of Our Sunday Visitor struck me as a powerful witness to all of us who struggle (or have struggled) with some aspect of Church teaching. The issue in this particular letter was the death penalty, but it could have been any number of issues concnerning faith or morals. The letter writer says that he has always supported the death penalty. "However, if the Church tells me I must not advocate the death penalty (and its not always easy to tell whether the Church has spoken or whether we're getting the opinion of a biased cleric), then I will reluctantly obey. As the editorial put it, 'we may not be able to do that with much enthusiasm' in some cases, but if that's what I'm asked to do by the legitimate representative of Christ on earth, then I'll do it."
Monday, January 17, 2005
Struggling to Accept Church Teaching
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Precious cargo? Or uterine contents?
Click here to see a Consumer Reports web page on which an infant in a car seat is referred to as "precious cargo".
Click here to see a Consumer Reports web page on which a baby in the womb is referred to as "uterine contents".
A question for the editors of Consumer Reports (or for anyone else who cares to answer): At what point does "uterine contents" morph into "precious cargo"?
Michael P.
Thought this would be of interest ...
· Archbishop's aide signals new approach Observer
Church ends taboo on mercy killings
· 'Compassionate case' for voluntary euthanasia
Sunday January 16, 2005
Canon Professor Robin Gill, a chief adviser to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said people should not be prosecuted for helping dying relatives who are in pain end their lives. Last week Gill was sent by Williams to give evidence to a parliamentary committee investigating euthanasia.
Gill's stance marks a major shift by the Church of England and was welcomed by groups campaigning for a change in the law to allow for people to be helped to die under strictly limited circumstances.
'There is a very strong compassionate case for voluntary euthanasia,' Gill told The Observer . 'In certain cases, such as that which involved Diane Pretty [the woman who was terminally ill with motor neurone disease and who campaigned for the right to be helped to die], there is an overwhelming case for it.'
His claims were last night seized on by pro-euthanasia groups as evidence that the archbishop is prepared to engage in a debate on an issue that has long divided the clergy.
They described Williams's decision to send Gill to give evidence to the committee hearing Lord Joffe's private member's bill on assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'highly significant' and suggested that it represented a softening of the Church's attitude to mercy killings.
'The archbishop's choice of Gill represents a willingness to enter into a more constructive dialogue than before about this important issue. We hope it will encourage other members of the clergy to speak out openly in support,' said Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
Gill's
comments come after Brian Blackburn, a retired policeman who killed his
terminally ill wife in a suicide pact, walked free from the Old Bailey
last Friday with a nine-month suspended sentence.
[To continue reading this piece, click here.]
Michael P.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Consumer Reports: Rating Contraception and Abortion Methods
This item (thanks Maria) may be of interest to our readers.
*MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH*
Consumer Reports
advocates abortion
Trusted magazine analyzes condoms, refers readers to Planned Parenthood
to eliminate 'uterine contents'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 10, 2005
11:11 p.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Consumer Reports, the respected magazine that has advised Americans on
everything from new car purchases to which electric can opener to buy,
has published a list of birth-control options that includes abortion,
complete with a section describing how the procedure gets rid of a
pregnant mother's "uterine contents."
The main report, which is available in the February issue and online,
...analyzes various brands of condoms for strength and reliability.
Along with the condom report, Consumer Reports provides both a
comparative guide to other contraceptive methods and a page entitled
"Birth control: More and safer choices," ...which includes discussion of abortion.
... "There were no details of the risks of abortion like breast cancer or
mental anguish, no pro-life alternatives like adoption, nothing," reader
Marc Smulowitz commented to WND. "Just a soulless 'consumer report' as
if they were recommending the acquisition of the latest blender."
...
To see the full article, click here.
Virginia's Fornication Ban Struck Down
Here is a press release from the ACLU, praising a recent decision by Virginia's Supreme Court striking down that state's ban on fornication. The Richmond newspaper reports that, in that court's view, there is "no relevant distinction" between the Virginia statute outlawing fornication and the Texas sodomy law the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2003. Justice Elizabeth Lacy reasoned that the State's interest in "protection of public health and encouraging the birth of children to married couples" were, given Lawrence v. Texas, "insufficient to sustain the statute's constitutionality." Under the rationale adopted in the Texas case, "decisions by married or unmarried persons regarding their intimate physical relationship are elements of their personal relationship that are entitled to due process protection," Lacy said. (Here is the Washington Post story on the case).
Certainly, this decision cannot come as any surprise. And, it strikes me that there are plenty of prudential reasons for a conscientious legislator to vote against laws purporting to regulate fornication (or any other private sexual conduct). (Indeed, I would think that thoughtful legislators would almost certainly oppose such bans). Still, it does seem unfortunate that the constitutionalization of the matter in "liberty" terms, as in Lawrence, is producing constitutional doctrine under which courts are required to denigrate the public interest in, for example, "the encouragement of childbirth to married couples."
Rick
Friday, January 14, 2005
Christian Ethicists Advocate Just Peacemaking as Corollary to Just War
 |
|
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
[From PBS's Religion & Ethics Newsweekly]
Just War and Just Peace
January 14, 2005 Episode no. 820
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week820/exclusive.html
Christian Ethicists Advocate Just Peacemaking as Corollary to Just War
by Alexandra Alter
Almost two years have passed since the start of the Iraq war, but war, peace, and nation-building still dominated the debate among Christian ethicists at their annual meeting this January.
In a significant shift, many scholars endorsed taking a proactive approach to peacemaking rather than merely shunning war.
At their 2003 meeting, two months prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, most ethicists criticized the impending conflict either by arguing that a preemptive invasion did not meet standards of Christian "just war" theory or by advocating pacifism. At their 46th annual gathering last weekend in Miami, some members of the Society of Christian Ethics proposed what they say is a powerful third alternative: the application of "just peacemaking theory" as a method of defusing current conflicts and preventing future wars.
[To continue reading this piece, click here.]
Michael P.
Justices Breyer and Scalia on Foreign Law and the Constitution
Here is a link to a debate / discussion, featuring Justices Breyer and Scalia, held recently at the Washington College of Law at American University. I thought this would be of interest to many MOJ-ers. My own view, for what it's worth, is that Justice Breyer makes some good points about the need for American lawyers and legal scholars to read, understand, and reflect upon the decisions of "foreign" courts, but Justice Scalia is correct to insist that -- except in the context of a few specialized areas -- American judges ought not to permit these decisions to inform their own rulings concerning the content of our own Constitution. Any thoughts?
Rick
UPDATE: Professor Kenneth Anderson (who teachers at American University and who has a blog of his own, focusing on just-war theory) has posted his own thoughts, and gathered links to the thoughts of others, about the debate.
More on the Right to Privacy
Cumberland law prof David Smolin responds to my query on the right to privacy with some helpful resources:
First, there is an "originalist" theory of constitutional privacy as an unenumerated right which has not been articulated by the Court; this theory would be based specifically on the views of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding slavery, the family, and related questions. I outline some of this in the following article: Fourteenth Amendment Unenumerated Rights Jurisprudence: An Essay in Response to Stenberg v. Carhart, 24 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 815 (Summer 2001). More broadly, I think it is possible to clearly separate the positive and negative strands of the doctrine: I did this in another article: The Jurisprudence of Privacy in a Splintered Supreme Court, 75 Marquette Law Review 975 (1992).
"A Generous Heart and a Closed Mouth"
Trinity College (Dublin) law prof and former dean Gerry Whyte offers this take on the question of evangelization in the wake of the tsunamis:
[A]s an Irish Catholic reared with folk memory of the Great Famine, I would be very nervous about linking the provision of relief for the victims of the tsunami with overt evangelization in case it created the impression that this concrete expression of human solidarity came at a price. Better, in any event, to provide the relief with a generous heart and a closed mouth and to hope that, afterwards, this example might prove thought-provoking for those who witness it.
"God's Mercy": Capital Punishment and Jewish Law
Here is a paper, by Professors Irene and Yale Rosenberg, of the University of Houston, called "Of God's Mercy and the Four Biblical Methods of Capital Punishment: Stoning, Burning, Beheading, and Strangulation." (what a title!).
In this article Professors Irene and Yale Rosenberg analyze capital punishment under Jewish Law, focusing on the four biblical death penalties: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangulation. To modern sensibilities these methods of execution may appear barbaric, especially as compared to the modern death by lethal injection. As with most of Jewish Law, however, one cannot read the Bible without reference to the Talmud. The Talmud makes it clear that because of various evidentiary, procedural and substantive barriers to conviction it is almost impossible to impose the death penalty.
The Talmudic discussions of the death penalties reveal that the Sages stressed the need for a favorable death, one that would not unnecessarily prolong the death agony nor subject those undergoing execution to indignity. Finally, the authors compare the Jewish Law of capital punishment with that of the United States. They conclude that although Jewish Law seems harsher, in fact it prevents innocent people from being executed and emphasize the sanctity of life.
Rick
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
