Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Conscience protection in Europe
Matt Schmitz provides a helpful update on disturbing developments in Europe regarding conscience protection for health care providers. I have not yet read the proposed resolution to be considered this week by the Council of Europe, and I'm not sure that I will agree fully with Matt's assessment (e.g., I don't think that public disclosure of conscientious objector status is per se unreasonable -- I have recommended such a measure in the past -- though I agree that a government registry of objectors could be put to troubling uses). He is right, though, to raise some big red flags. The resolution's denial of conscience protection for hospitals is downright maddening; though hospitals and other corporate bodies do not exercise a right of conscience, they are essential venues for the formation, expression, and exercise of conscience. (See, e.g., here.)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Eternal law, natural law, and human law
I've posted a new chapter on the practical, including U.S. constitutional, consequences of taking seriously the Thomistic thesis that the natural law is our participation in the eternal law and is, therefore, a real law, one from which no rational person, not even the human lawmaker we sometimes mistakenly call sovereign, is exempt. This chapter consolidates and continues some of my earlier work aimed at showing that a natural law account of human law does not per se lead to what is commonly referred to as judicial activism. My account does, though, exalt the role of the human lawmaker in a way that will perhaps be disturbing to those, such as Justice Scalia, who tend in the direction of a kind of democratic fundamentalism: in leading the multitude to the common good, the lawgiver is doing something God-like. (Was this perhaps the hidden premise of Justice Stevens's justification of the rule of Chevron? I think we know the answer).
Those who were present at the Law and Religion Roundtable at Brooklyn Law this past June saw an early version of this chapter. In response to the helpful comments of several at the Roundtable (especially Andy Koppelman, Kent Greenawalt, Nelson Tebbe, and Steve Shiffrin), I have sharpened my account of why and how the eternal law provides the nonnegotiable definition of all law, including human law. My account still won't satisfy those who wish to call an unjust "law" a law, but I think I've done better now at showing why Thomas was right -- and why even those of us in the Anglo-American jurisprudential tradition would do better -- to call such a thing a mere "document."
Update: The original link I provided didn't work. I believe the problem's been corrected.
Are we complicit?
It has been deeply disturbing to read media coverage of the bullying and suicide of at least six gay youths in the past few weeks. A colleague of mine in psychology assures me that this represents only a small percentage of the number of LGBT young people who committed suicide in the same period, not to mention those who attempted to end their lives. In reflection, I wonder whether we are somehow complicit in creating an environment of alienation and despair. In the Church's attempt to assert it's commitment to heterosexual marriage and to maintain that homosexuality is a moral disorder, does it help to create a cultural climate that tacitly legitimizes the stigmatization of gay young people? At the very least, I hope that bishops and pastors will take the opportunity to offer encouragement to young people at risk and to call communities to love rather than to reject. It has also caused me to reconsider the possile benefits of anti-bullying legislation even if it were to serve a largely symbolic function.
The Church gets "political" in Minnesota
Minnesota Catholics are buzzing (at least in my parish) about the DVD sent out by Abp. Nienstedt last week to all Catholic households in the state advocating for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Aside from the ongoing debate about the substance of the Church's teaching on marriage and the priority placed on that teaching over other issues, as well as the Archbishop's characterization of the state's elected leaders as "ruling elites," there has also been criticism over the "political" nature of the mailing, coming just four weeks before election day. Though the marriage question is not on the ballot (Abp Nienstedt is arguing that it should be on the ballot), only one candidate for governor opposes SSM, while the other two support it. Whether or not the Church's position on a given issue is shared by lots of candidates, no candidates, or only a single candidate, issue advocacy cannot be transformed into candidate endorsement for purposes of the laws on tax-exempt status (though if I'm wrong on that, please tell me). I was puzzled, though, by this paraphrase of the Archbishop's response to criticism:
Nienstedt, who says he does not know how much the DVD campaign cost or who donated the funds, insists the DVD is not political but part of an ongoing effort to educate Minnesota Catholics about marriage.
Since this is not a direct quote, I'm not sure if the Archbishop actually said that the campaign is "not political" or if that was the reporter's characterization. Either way, the phrasing seems unnecessary and unhelpful to the conversation about the Church's role in public life. Of course the DVD campaign is political -- how could it not be? It may not be partisan, but we should be careful not to conflate "partisan" and "political." The Church's teaching has political implications, just as the Gospel has political implications. That's not a bad thing, and it's difficult to conceive of how it could be otherwise.
A promising stem-cell development?
The Washington Post is reporting:
Scientists have invented an efficient way to produce apparently safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, a long-sought step toward bypassing the moral morass surrounding one of the most promising fields in medicine. . . .
"All I can say is 'wow' - this is a game changer," said Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "It would solve some of the most important problems in the field." . . .
Opponents of human embryonic stem cell research seized on the development as the most convincing evidence yet that the morally questionable cells are unnecessary.
"With each new study it becomes more and more implausible to claim that scientists must rely on destruction of human embryos to achieve rapid progress in regenerative medicine," said Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. . . .
Rossi and other researchers, however, said that embryonic stem cells are still crucial because, among other things, they remain irreplaceable for evaluating alternatives. . . .
Thoughts?
American plutonomy
Maybe the most persuasive argument against America's growing wealth disparity is not a moral one, but a practical one: extreme wealth disparity doesn't work well because concentrating spending power in the hands of a few is a recipe for economic turmoil. Michael Lund thinks so:
[H]istory makes it clear that when economies mutate into plutonomies they become dangerously volatile. Just as a ship with a broad base is more stable than a top-heavy boat, so an economy in which well-paid workers create mass consumer markets for the goods and services they provide is more stable than a top-heavy plutonomy.
Monday, October 4, 2010
"Never Let Me Go"
I loved the novel, "Never Let Me Go", by Kazuo Ishiguro. (More here and here.) And I am, I admit, completely (to use a technical term) stoked to learn that the book has been made into a movie. (Of course, if the movie is lousy, I will be crushed.) This review, from the Headline Bistro blog ("News Catholics Need to Know"), suggests that the movie does credit to the book. (HT: First Things). I'd welcome reports from any one who sees the film.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Where to begin...
I begin this posting by thanking Rob for his recent post of September 28 entitled “Human Rights Campaign gets nasty.” His subject deals with the launching of a new campaign against the National Organization for Marriage. But that’s not the point of the organizers of the campaign; rather, the point is to introduce odium against a group of dedicated folks whose sin or crime, take your pick, is to support the traditional notion that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The purpose of the campaign is not to engage in robust political debate but to demonize people with whom one disagrees. While this tactic may be the hallmark of totalitarianism, it is not what’s expected in and of a democracy.
Now our friends at the National Catholic Reporter pick up the task of advancing the assault on traditional marriage not by the same tactics employed by the Human Rights Campaign but by news manipulation, another tactic of totalitarian dictatorship. It is hard to come by an article (there are exceptions) in this periodical that treats fairly or tries to explain to the faithful—and anyone else who may be interested—the teachings of the Church and why the Church teaches what it teaches. The publication’s recent article of September 29 entitled Group aims to mobilize Catholics for equality [HERE] represents a new frontier in journalism that claims to be faith-based in a particular faith—or as it self-explains: “the only truly independent, journalistic outlet for Catholics and others who struggle with the complex moral and societal issues of the day...and the NCR is the only significant alternative Catholic voice that provides avenues for expression of diverse perspectives, promoting tolerance and respect for differing ideas.” I wish this were true, but if I may borrow from the film Jerry Maguire, show me the differing ideas! As I survey the internet, I see lots of avenues for expression of diverse and independent perspectives on issues important to Catholics and others. I do wonder if the publication meets the standard of N. 24 of Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) that “no project... may claim the name ‘Catholic’ unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority,” but I digress.
The NCR’s September 29 article offers little help in explaining the Church’s position on marriage and why she teaches what she teaches. Moreover, the article is patently critical of her teachings and actions when asserting that the Church and “Catholic allies have used deep pockets and organizational strength to speak out for state laws that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.” I wonder who the allies were and what deep pockets were behind the 1983 Charter of the Rights of the Family issued by the Holy See, which had the temerity to declare that marriage is “that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman”? And, what is the retort of the NCR?
The NCR champions a “group of politically savvy Catholics” who claim that “the bishops are out of step with the majority of Catholics on this question” regarding the definition of marriage and who further profess that 62 percent of American Catholics think otherwise and believe “that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable.” Taking this important point and applying it in another context, one could conclude that Bishop Clemens August von Galen was out of step with the “politically savvy” of his time.
It is disheartening to believe the implied claim that only those who can agree with the Human Rights Campaign’s views “know love when they see it.” Can it not be that those who disagree with the organization’s position—and, perhaps, the position of the NCR—can also love, but can they also say that this organization’s (and the NCR’s) views are wrong?
The NCR article takes great care in noting who contributed how much to various citizen initiatives designed to safeguard the traditional view of marriage. The article is silent on who contributed how much to citizen initiatives that were a counterpoint and support same-sex marriage. While critical of those Catholics who are exercising their rights as citizens—be they clerical or lay—to support traditional marriage, the article applauds those who have different views and assert them, sometimes in an un-Christian manner.
I fear that the Church and her faithful are in for more difficult times. But, I also see hope because it is difficult times which bring out the best in many.
RJA sj
Are low taxes about moral desert (or freedom)?
Ned Resnikoff criticizes (what he perceives to be) a reliance by conservatives on moral desert for their tax-cutting arguments. Does the hard-working billionaire deserve more than the hard-working waitress? What about the billionaire who inherited all his money? Etc. etc. He concludes that tax policy should "balance the state’s ability to provide needed services for all citizens, including its most needy, while preserving a capitalist system which rewards achievement, and therefore (one would hope) innovation, productivity and excellence." I tend to agree with Resnikoff's conclusion, but I think he mischaracterizes mainstream conservatism's tax arguments. He writes:
The only thing this debate about who deserves what really tells us is that very few people are willing to admit just how insubstantial and malleable our innate character really is. When you control for environmental, genetic, social, historical, and biological factors, what differentiates my own distinguishing features from Charles Manson’s -- or, for that matter, Obama’s, Palin’s, Lincoln’s or yours -- is either imperceptible or completely nonexistent. And if that’s the case, I don’t see how you can argue that either of us deserve more or less than any of those people.
What this suggests to me is that the only way you can coherently argue that a person inherently deserves a certain level of privilege or material comfort is to also argue that all persons deserve it, by virtue of their personhood. We already have language to describe these things that all persons innately deserve: we call them rights.
I find his degree of determinism a bit disturbing, but I think he also misses conservatives' main point. I don't think most conservatives focus on moral desert as the linchpin of tax policy. I think they focus on freedom. They're not the same thing. (I think economic freedom tends to get overplayed by conservatives, but that's another story . . .)
Censorship in Spain
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
