Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Thank you, Lisa, for your report
about the Thomas More gathering co-hosted and sponsored by the Murphy Institute
at Saint Thomas and the excellent University of Dallas Center for Thomas More
studies. If I recall correctly, Marc had also posted an entry on this
conference earlier in the spring before the gathering convened. Coincidentally
during the same period in which the conference was held, I finished reading two
books on More and Moreana. In one of them, I came across reference to an essay
published in 1961 by the well-known More scholar Father Germain Marc’hadour.
Father Marc’hadour investigated in this particular article the topic of More’s
obedience. More surely was obedient to the law and civil authorities including
Henry VIII; however, his ultimate obedience was to God and His holy Church.
In pursuing this particular study, Marc’hadour
made a small digression in his pure study on More to demonstrate how the
political difficulties of Thomas More’s time that contest faith in general, and
Catholicism in particular, are not restricted to the Tudor era. During that
period many good people had to make important decisions and, then, choices
about loyalty and fidelity that essentially pitted the civil authority against
the Church. But as Marc’hadour and others have demonstrated, this test has not
been restricted to that era. I join the ranks of those who do not think that
the Church-State issues which confronted Thomas More and his contemporaries were
restricted to the sixteenth century. During that period, Catholic England
became something else besides a nation that was breaking from Rome; in short,
it was transformed into a totalitarian system headed and directed by a well-educated
but increasingly despotic monarch. By the 1950s, another Englishman,
Christopher Dawson, warned that the twentieth century democracies themselves
could mimic the terrors generated by totalitarian states, and here I would
include Henry’s England. Following the thought of Dawson, John Paul II noted in
the 1990s that a democracy without values is but a thinly disguised
totalitarianism.
Apparently Marc’hadour joined the
ranks of Christopher Dawson and JPII by penning in 1961 these thoughts (which
are quoted in James Monti’s excellent 1997 book, The King’s Good Servant But God’s First):
It may be that the near future will
face all of us with the problem of harmonizing, or simply reconciling, our
loyalty to Caesar with our loyalty to God… [But Caesar] is no longer a monarch;
he is a cabinet or a party… [or] public opinion, which shapes—and is shaped
by—the newspapers, the broadcasts, the schools… If we may bring a few examples,
there are today fields of conduct, such as divorce, sexual behavior and
education, the use of artificial contraceptives, abortion, mercy-killing… and a
few more, in which a Catholic, especially if he [or she] is a lawyer, a doctor,
a nurse, a teacher, will find himself alone against practically everyone else
in [the] profession… As in penal days, the Catholic will sometimes be alone of
his species in the whole street… [and] find fellow Catholics ready to taunt
him… In extreme cases fidelity to the doctrine of Mother Church will mean worse
than corporal death: it will alienate from a man the trust and esteem of the
people he likes, or even loves, best… The prospect of this social
disqualification, of this civic annihilation… is as strong and effective a
pressure as the old forms of physical duress… [T]housands will apostatize
simply because they see no rational justification for the Church’s position on
a number of points, and they have not enough faith… to cling to her through
sheer obedience.
However, Father Marc’hadour did
have a remedy to address this problem: it was “the fervent intercession” of
Saint Thomas More which “can remedy the sickly reluctance of many tepid
Christians.” While Marc’hadour understood how More could be both a “dangerous
patron” and a “dangerous friend,” something could be learned from one “who
never believed in being carried to heaven on a featherbed.”
Today we find the neuralgic issues
identified by Marc’hadour (and new ones such as the meaning of marriage and
family) very much with us; moreover, we find those in national, state,
provincial, and regional governments strongly pushing the agenda to transform
abortion, euthanasia, access to artificial contraception, etcetera into so-called “human rights” issues which no one,
especially faithful Catholics, should be able to challenge regardless of the
reasons tendered for opposition or objection to these newly discovered “rights”.
In addition, we see many in the academy and religious life, including those who
use the modifier “Catholic” to self-identify, urging their co-religionists to
cast aside the teachings of the Church and accept what are considered to be the
more enlightened views of the present age.
But here at the Mirror of Justice, most of our
discussions that are pursued and positions which are taken rely upon objective
reason to consider, understand, and explain the Church’s teachings on these
increasingly controversial topics, which have a bearing on the development of
Catholic legal theory. But our discussions on this site really go beyond the
important matters that intersect Catholic and any other legal theory—they also
address, quite often, the nature of the human person and what our individual
and social existence is all about: union with God.
In short, Thomas More understood
that the dangerous political and social maelstrom in which he lived and died
had to do not only with the civil governance of his time; it also had to do
with human destiny, that is, with final things, including the final thing which I
have just mentioned. As one goes through More’s vast correspondence and his
so-called Tower Writings that he left and which are extant, you can see the
mind and soul of the lawyer who was trying to be the good and obedient servant
of both God and country. In the eyes of some, he failed in the latter category;
but, I think the holders of this view are mistaken. Why? Thomas More understood
that there is more about the human condition than the present moment and
surviving it as best one can; he realized that the collection of “present
moments” is but a prelude to the final things which we must all face. Thus, he
used his intelligence and objective reasoning to try and avoid the traps with
which the totalitarian king of his day attempted to ensnare him; but while
doing this, More never lost sight of the final goal of the human condition and
the necessary obedience that must be directed to the Universal Sovereign.
This goal is not about doing well
in this world, a world which comes to an end for all of us with our natural or
accelerated death; this goal is not about how to make friends and influence
people; this goal is not about being the best or most powerful or most
influential; this goal is not about getting along with everyone by doing what
they are willing to do in order to join them in fellowship. The goal is about
getting ready to meet God, and this is the final destiny we all share in
common. Thomas More was the better lawyer, father, husband, and member of
society for the path he chose. And what about each one of us: which path do we
choose? After all, we are all like More because we share the important, final
thing, too.
RJA sj
When I first heard about the "Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill" introduced into Parliament on April 17 of this year, I assumed naively that it was an "Onion" type spoof. Sadly, it is not. Under this proposal, every child and young person will be assigned a "named person" (parents of the child are ineligible) whose job it is to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person by, among other things, advising, informing, or supporting the child or the child's parents; and raising a matter about the child with a relevant authority. Information deemed relevant on each child will be collected by the named person and passed on to successor named persons or other relevant authorites.
A "targeted intervention" is developed by the creation of a "child's plan" when "the child's wellbeing is being, or is at risk of being, adversely affected by any manner." In deciding whether a plan is needed and the contents of the plan, the "authority" making the decision will "so far as reasonably practicable ... ascertain and have regard for the views of the child, and the child's parents."
Scottish Ministers have broad authority, as far as I can tell, to determine what consitutes a threat to a child's well being. The Bill itself doesn't contain an appeal mechanism for parents or their children although the existing Act may contain some provision for appeal.
In "Vouchers Withing Reason," which I review here (see also here), and his his other books, law professor James Dwyer argues that parents are mere licensees of the state for child rearing purposes, with state experts determining (and dictacting to parents) the meaning of child wellbeing. Scotland seems to be taking a page from Dwyer's playbook.
Have a look at Will Baude's very interesting response to Glenn Cohen's post on the sorts of reforms to higher education that seem most and least promising in light of technological and other challenges (or advances). Here's a bit from Will's post:
I'm much more skeptical of a refrain that Glenn employs a couple of times in his post-- the idea that it's helpful for us to imagine that we were "creating the first universities for our day and age," and use those imagined ideal first universities to evaluate whether and how our actual universities ought to change. Maybe it's my inner Hayek, but I'm not sure how good our imaginations really are, and I'm not sure how relevant the product of those imaginations ought to be.
I mean, for starters, once we are in the imagining business, why universities? If we were creating the first system of higher education for our day and age, is there any reason to believe we would do it via university, rather than some much more unbundled combination of written and oral materials? Would we have general rather than specialized certifications? And if we did decide to invent universities, what ought they be like? Despite having thought about this for a while, I honestly have no idea, and I'm skeptical of most of those who do have a confident idea.
I come at this problem quite differently. One of the defining characteristics of American universities is the way that they've become embedded in our society over time, and the set of social norms in and around them. You don't have to be Tyler Cowen to think that two of the main reasons people learn things by going to universities are the effects of socialization and the higher social status obtained by going. We can tell stories about the superiority of interactive class discussion over the internet and the library, but surely those embedded social effects are a huge part of any such superiority. And many of those social norms are bottom-up, not top-down. Imagining new from-scratch universities pushes us to dissociate the university from some of its most important virtues.
Baude and Cohen appear to be discussing the best way to approach the reform of higher education. But I wonder if the fundamental difference between them isn't really so much about higher education specifically, but about the general nature of institutional change. One other quick thought: whether one believes that the university's existing educational virtues are worth preserving may depend at least in part on the extent to which one also believes that those virtues continue to be maximally conducive to the university's educational mission. But I take part of Will's point to be that it is difficult to think well about that sort of issue in vacuo.
Over at America, Matt Malone has this essay, "Pursuing the Truth in Love," about "the mission of [the magazine] in a 21st century church." (HT: Jana Bennett at Catholic Moral Theology). In the piece, he proposes (among other things) that "[w]hile we may have solved the problem of the relationship between the church and the state, the problem of the relationship between the church and the political remains. Solving that problem, or at least presenting credible solutions to it, is the pre-eminent task of the Catholic media in the United States."
I think all of us who participate, as Catholics, in "public discourse" should read Malone's piece. I don't expect that everyone will agree with all he writes (!), but there's a whole lot in it for all of us, and each of us, to think about. He concludes with this:
“Love manifests itself more in deeds than in words.” America makes the following commitments:
1. Church. The church in the United States must overcome the problem of factionalism. This begins by re-examining our language. America will no longer use the terms “liberal,” “conservative” or “moderate” when referring to our fellow Catholics in an ecclesiastical context.
2. Charity. How we say things is as important as what we say. America seeks to provide a model for a public discourse that is intelligent and charitable. In the next few months, America will announce a new set of policies for the public commentary on our various platforms.
3. Community. America will appoint a community editor who will moderate our public conversation, ensuring that it rises to the standards we set for thoughtfulness and charity. We will continue to provide a forum for a diverse range of faithful, Catholic voices.
Monday, June 3, 2013
[From The Tablet, here:]
Cardinal backs civil unions
3 June 2013
Two
of the most senior Belgian clerics have voiced support for civil
unions, but said the Church would not see such a partnership as a
marriage, which they said was only between a man and a woman.
Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, Archbishop of Brussels, made his
comments through his spokesman in response to an interview by the
Belgian newspaper De Tijd with his successor, Cardinal Godfried
Danneels.
In an interview to mark his 80th birthday, the cardinal told the
paper it was good that states were making reforms to normalise same-sex
relationships, saying it showed "more nuanced thinking about the person
in their totality rather than being fixated on the moral principle". He
said the recognition of gay relationships was a legal matter and not one
for the Church to comment on, even though they could not constitute
real marriage.
Danneels said the Church had evolved in its understanding of homosexuals.
I want to echo Lisa's comment below about the rich discussion during the symposium on St. Thomas More sponsored by the Murphy Institute and the Center for Thomas More Studies. Speaking of Thomas More, Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania delivered the commencement address at Villanova Law a couple weeks ago and spoke about Thomas More and Abraham Lincoln as role models for lawyers. The address is well worth watching, which you can do at this
link (starting at 21:00).
Leon Wieseltier delivered the commencement address at Brandeis a few weeks ago. Here's a bit, sent to me by a correspondent (The full address is available at The New Republic, here):
For decades now in America we have been
witnessing a steady and sickening denigration of humanistic understanding and
humanistic method. We live in a society inebriated by technology, and happily,
even giddily governed by the values of utility, speed, efficiency, and
convenience. The technological mentality that has become the American worldview
instructs us to prefer practical questions to questions of meaning – to ask of
things not if they are true or false, or good or evil, but how they work. Our
reason has become an instrumental reason, and is no longer the reason of the
philosophers, with its ancient magnitude of intellectual ambition, its belief
that the proper subjects of human thought are the largest subjects, and that
the mind, in one way or another, can penetrate to the very principles of
natural life and human life. Philosophy itself has shrunk under the influence
of our weakness for instrumentality – modern American philosophy was in fact
one of the causes of that weakness -- and generally it, too, prefers to tinker
and to tweak.
