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.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Gerson, Santorum, and Catholic Social Thought

Michael Gerson writes, in this op-ed, about former Sen. Santorum and "subsidiarity" here.

. . .  In this view, needs are best served by institutions closest to individuals. When those institutions require help or protection, higher-order institutions should intervene. So when state governments imposed Jim Crow laws, the federal government had a duty to overturn them. When a community is caught in endless economic depression and drained of social capital, government should find creative ways to empower individuals and charities — maybe even prison ministries that change lives from the inside out.

This is not “big government” conservatism. It is a form of limited government less radical and simplistic than the libertarian account. A compassionate conservative approach to governing would result in a different and smaller federal role — using free-market ideas to strengthen families and communities, rather than constructing centralized bureaucracies. It rejects, however, a utopian belief in unfettered markets that would dramatically increase the sum of suffering. . . .

As Rob Vischer and Patrick Brennan (and many others) could explain better than I'm able, subsidiarity is not entirely about the "local v. central / big v. small" question; it is, as I understand it, more importantly a principle about pluralism, and "social ontology."  Still, I'm happy to have the idea discussed in the Washington Post and elsewhere. 

The Church in Minnesota and the Marriage Amendment

As many people doubtless are aware, there will be an amendment on the ballot in Minnesota this November to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Minnesotans appear to be deeply divided on the issue; a poll conducted in November found 48 percent of Minnesotans in favor and 43 percent opposed to it.

In the Twin Cities, Archbishop Neinstedt has been strongly supporting the amendment. In October 2010 he sent a video to all Catholic households in Minnesota advocating for the amendment. (Rob discussed reaction to that here.) Over the past several months he has taken a number of steps, including directing parishes to appoint committees to garner support for the initiative and proposing a prayer to be read at all masses for the passage of the amendment.

Most recently, the Archbishop sent a letter to the priests and deacons of the Archdiocese reiterating the importance of supporting the amendment and stating his expectation that priests and deacons who have personal reservations on the issue not express those publicly. In relevent part it reads:

It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

Not surprisingly, there has been some criticism of the Archbishop's letter to priests and deacons.  Whatever else one thinks, the reference to ordination vows to defend Church teaching equates one's position on whether the State constitution should be amended with Church doctrine.  Church teaching on marriage is clear, but is it really self-evident that whether the state constitution be amended is a matter of Church doctrine?  

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Perreau-Saussine, "Catholicism and Democracy"

A deeply interesting looking book by the brilliant French historian and political theorist Émile PerreauJ9732-Saussine, who died tragically young at 37 years old, Catholicism and Democracy: An Essay in the History of Political Thought (Richard Rex trans.) (Princeton University Press 2012).  I have read some of Perreau-Saussine's reflections on the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and they are truly excellent -- so far as I know, his superb intellectual biography of MacIntyre has not been translated.  That ought to be rectified immediately.  English readers would appreciate his thoughtful and penetrating remarks -- an illuminating take on MacIntyre that is distinctively French in certain ways (I believe, but am not certain, that Pierre Manent was a teacher, or at least a colleague, of Perreau-Saussine, and it seemed to me that one could sense the influence here and there).  Here is Princeton's description of this book:

Catholicism and Democracy is a history of Catholic political thinking from the French Revolution to the present day. Emile Perreau-Saussine investigates the church's response to liberal democracy, a political system for which the church was utterly unprepared. 

Looking at leading philosophers and political theologians--among them Joseph de Maistre, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Charles Péguy--Perreau-Saussine shows how the church redefined its relationship to the State in the long wake of the French Revolution. Disenfranchised by the fall of the monarchy, the church in France at first embraced that most conservative of ideologies, "ultramontanism" (an emphasis on the central role of the papacy). Catholics whose church had lost its national status henceforth looked to the papacy for spiritual authority. Perreau-Saussine argues that this move paradoxically combined a fundamental repudiation of the liberal political order with an implicit acknowledgment of one of its core principles, the autonomy of the church from the state. However, as Perreau-Saussine shows, in the context of twentieth-century totalitarianism, the Catholic Church retrieved elements of its Gallican heritage and came to embrace another liberal (and Gallican) principle, the autonomy of the state from the church, for the sake of its corollary, freedom of religion. Perreau-Saussine concludes that Catholics came to terms with liberal democracy, though not without abiding concerns about the potential of that system to compromise freedom of religion in the pursuit of other goals.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Are civil unions a threat to marriage?

Civil unions have become popular in Europe, and now they're making headway in the U.S.  Designed to provide a non-marriage alternative to same-sex couples, they're being embraced by opposite-sex couples who reject marriage.  A recent study based on Cook County's civil union law raises some concerns, as John Culhane reports:

Many of the other straight civil union pioneers have also said no to marriage—for themselves and as an institution. The evidence is in a report that the Cook County Clerk’s Office recently issued on the nation’s first opposite-sex couples who civilly united. It found dissatisfaction with the institution of marriage because of concerns with its historical assignment of roles, its connection to religion, and its unfairness to gay and lesbian couples. My own interviews with some of these same couples, who have rejected marriage and plunged into the shallower, murkier pool of the civil union, reflect a cohort prepared to take the wrecking ball to marriage itself.

The numbers in the study are quite limited, and for all we know, those who choose civil unions may never have chosen marriage anyway.  But many defenders of traditional marriage have viewed civil unions as a way to grant legal legitimacy to same-sex unions while maintaining the integrity of marriage.  In the end, will civil unions end up undercutting marriage?

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

In Memoriam: Two Catholic Philosophers

On December 27th, the world of philosophy lost one of its most brilliant and eminent figures---Michael Dummett, Wykeham Professor of Logic at Oxford University.  I got to know Professor Dummett and his wife Ann in the early 1980s when I was a lecturer in Jurisprudence in New College, to which the Wykeham chair was attached.  He was a friendly, jovial man, with an impressive mane of white hair and a roar of a laugh.  He originally made his reputation as an interpreter of Frege, and went on to make important contributions in the fields of logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of language, and metaphysics.  He was also an expert on the theory of voting and (of all things) tarot.

Michael was a faithful Catholic, having converted to the faith at age 19 before beginning his undergraduate studies at Oxford.  He had a special devotion to the Eucharist, of which he wrote a famous defense ("The Intelligibility of Eucharistic Doctrine" in William J. Abraham and Steven W. Holzer, eds., The Rationality of Religious Belief: Essays in Honour of Basil Mitchell, Clarendon Press, 1987).  He and Ann were tireless campaigners against every form of racism, and they were among the few pro-life leftists in Britain. (Pro-lifers are hardly in abundance even among political conservatives in Britain.)  He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1999.

But there is more sad news.  Only days after Professor Dummett's death, we lost another outstanding Catholic philosopher and I lost another friend:  Alfonso Gomez-Lobo of Georgetown University.  Professor Gomez-Lobo, who was born in Chile, was also an interpreter (and translator) of Frege, though his most important scholarly contributions were in ethics and on the thought of ancient philosophers, especially the Greeks. He was the Ryan Family Professor of Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy at Georgetown.

Alfonso and I became close friends when we served together on the President's Council on Bioethics, under the chairmanship of the great Leon Kass, beginning in 2002.  He was a wonderfully kind man and a guilelessly charming one.  He was admired and respected even by those members of the Council who did not share his perspective or views on the ethics of human embryonic stem-cell research and "therapeutic" cloning.  (Alfonso and I were co-authors of an addendum to the Council's report Human Cloning and Human Dignity, available here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5550&printer_friendly=1.)  He was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Life.

Requiem Aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetuae luceat eis. Requiescant in pace.

Review of Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy

Whitley Kaufman (U. Mass. Lowell, Philosophy) has posted a generous review of the volume on retributivism edited by Mark White (to which I contributed a chapter) on the Law and Politics Book Review run by the University of Maryland. 

A letter to the Florida Family Association

On December 15, 2011, Jennifer Bryson and I sent the message below to David Caton, Executive Director of the Florida Family Association, an organization that has campaigned against the reality television show "All American Muslim" on The Learning Channel.  Dr. Bryson is Director of the Witherspoon Institute's Research Project on Islam and Civil Society.  She is a graduate of Stanford University and earned her Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University.  As a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, she served for two years as an interrogator at the dentention facility at Guantanamo Bay.  (She provides an account of her work and experience here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/3934.)

Dear Mr. Caton:

As pro-life and pro-family Christians, we support and applaud the purposes of the Florida Family Association (FFA) as set forth in your organization’s mission statement:  to “educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values.”  We are writing now, however, in a spirit of respect and brotherhood, to urge you prayerfully to reconsider your position on the question of the television show All American Muslim on The Learning Channel (TLC). 

You have said that TLC’s All-American Muslim is propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.” You have also alleged that the show is propaganda “clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law,” and that it “profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.”

All American Muslim is a reality television show featuring five families; it does not purport to be a documentary about the whole of Islam.  The important point we wish to make, however, is that the vast majority of our Muslim fellow citizens are indeed ordinary folks.  They are good people and good Americans.  They share our fundamental moral values and our commitments to democratic institutions and civil and religious liberty.  They do not promote hatred of Christians and Jews and have no desire to establish an Islamic theocracy.  They are as appalled as we are at the rhetoric and conduct of those of their religion who do promote hatred and who seek to undermine democratic freedoms.

Please know that in our pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedom work at the Witherspoon Institute, we have found strong partners and allies in many Muslims.  They have joined with us in promoting respect for human life in all stages and conditions; in upholding the virtues of modesty and chastity; in fighting the plagues of pornography and marital infidelity; and in working to protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience both at home and abroad.

Of course, there are violent extremists and enemies of freedom who act in the name of Islam—no question about that.  They preach anti-Semitism in its vilest forms and seek domination.  They have no respect for the dignity and equality of women or for religious and civil liberty.  One of us (Dr. Bryson) has first-hand experience in confronting them: she spent two years serving our country as a United States Department of Defense interrogator at Guantanamo.  Like you, both of us believe that Islamist terrorists and radicals must be resolutely opposed and defeated.  But it is important to recognize that this is a view we and you share with the overwhelming majority of American Muslims.  It is certainly the view of those Muslims who have partnered with us in our pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedom efforts.  Their moral values are our moral values—and yours.

In our view, it is fundamentally unjust to tar all or most Muslims with the brush of extremism; and, as Christians and Americans, we must never countenance injustice.  Moreover, effectively countering the threats posed by genuine extremists requires us to welcome as friends and allies Muslims who share our opposition to radicalism and violence, who value their American citizenship and American freedom just as we do, and who contribute constructively to their communities and the larger society.  When we treat our Muslim fellow citizens justly, and when we welcome them as partners in our efforts on behalf of life, liberty, and human dignity, we are being true both to our Christian faith and to our American heritage.

In this spirit we have written previously in The Philadelphia Inquirer,

“Muslims are a growing segment of our population today. The vast majority seek to live in peace as good Americans in a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." They are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and they are as appalled as the rest of us by extremists who attack innocent people, execute apostates, engage in honor killings of allegedly wayward daughters, and the like. Most of them think like most of us: They believe in liberty, virtue, charity, self-discipline, personal responsibility, the sanctity of human life, and the importance of marriage and the family.”

It is not our purpose to condemn you or your organization. We do, however, believe that you are making a mistake—a correctable one—in opposing All American Muslim.  And, as fellow Christians, we believe we owe it to you as well as to our Muslim brothers and sisters to say so.  We would be happy to discuss our concerns with you and to hear your point of view.  We would also be happy to introduce you to some of the Muslims with whom we have been working so that you can see for yourself that there are leaders in the American Muslim community whom Christians should be embracing as allies, not alienating or treating as enemies.

Yours sincerely,

Robert P. George and Jennifer S. Bryson

(cross-posted at First Things)

Monday, January 2, 2012

Conference on Christian Legal Thought

If you'll be in or near Washington D.C. next weekend, don't forget to register for the Conference on Christian Legal Thought.  Details here.

"What will happen to Catholics and others . . . ?"

One of my superstar former students, writing about his experience at one of our nation's premier law schools, sent me a note after reading my MOJ post on marriage, religious liberty, and the "grand bargain."  Here is the text, with names removed to protect the innocent: 

I had a first-hand experience with this reality in law school. One of my constitutional law professors taught the section of our course relating to same-sex marriage under the "inevitability" banner. I met with him in office hours later to talk to him about something else, but I brought up a question that I have been wrestling with: if the SSM advocates are right and opposition to SSM becomes analogous to racism in our society, what will happen to Catholics and others whose views on SSM cannot and will not change? Are they to be excluded from public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions (e.g., law firm partnerships)? I posed the question to him because I was curious to hear his response, since he is generally a kind and reasonable person who seemed open to other viewpoints.

His response was very disappointing, and it shook my confidence in him. He responded to me by saying something along the lines of: "Well, they [Catholics and others] will either have to change their views or be treated in the same way that white supremacists and the segregationist Senators were treated. They were excluded from the judiciary entirely for decades because of the South's views on race."

He evinced no sympathy for the traditional marriage position or those who hold it. They were to be relegated to the ash heap of history. He said all of this to me knowing full well (because I had foolishly just told him) that I was a Catholic who opposed SSM.

Is anyone prepared to say that the view expressed by the professor is merely a fringe opinion in the contemporary academy?  Is anyone prepared to say that it is the view of only a small minority, or a minority at all, in what University of Virginia sociologist Jonathan Haidt calls the liberal tribal-moral community of contemporary academia?  Would anyone deny that there is a significant element in the elite sector of the culture---an element with real power over the lives and careers of people like my former student---that wishes to penalize or discriminate against those who refuse in conscience to yield to the liberal orthodoxy on issues of sex and marriage?  Consider the professor's own words.  He made no effort to hide his goals and intentions.  On the contrary, he made it abundantly clear that Catholics and others who persist in their dissent are to be treated the way we treat white supremacists.  They are to be stigmatized, subjected to discrimination, and denied the right to hold certain offices.

And this professor, as my student observed, is a "generally a kind and reasonable person who seems open to other viewpoints."  What are we to expect, then, from those who are even less "open to other viewpoints"?

An attack on a mosque in Queens, NY

The New York Daily News and other media outlets are reporting this morning on a series of fire bombings in the borough of Queens.  Fire bombs were hurled at four buildings: two private homes, a small shop, and a mosque.  Obviously, all of these atrocities are to be condemned in the harshest terms, but an attack on a house of worship is especially outrageous.  As believers in God, and in the freedom that helps to enable men and women to seek Him with a sincere heart and to strive to discern and do His will, we Catholics should be the first to condemn this attack, or any attack, on our Muslim brothers and sisters (and, indeed, our brothers and sisters of any faith) and to call for those responsible for it to be hunted down, prosectuted, and justly punished. One cannot help but be concerned that this particular crime was, at least in part, motivated by a desire to intimidate Muslim worshippers.  We should therefore condemn it no less swiftly and no less harshly than we condemn violent attacks by Islamist radicals on Christians and Jews and their houses of worship.  Just as good Muslims sought to protect Coptic Christians against violence at the hands of extremists (who, alas, were numerous) in Egypt, good Christians should seek to protect our Muslim fellow citizens. This is a time when we who are Catholic would do well to recall what we are taught about Islam by our Church in the great document Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council:

The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Amen.