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.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Archbishop Dolan's plan for New York's Catholic schools

By Rick Garnett

I linked, a few days ago, to Archbishop Dolan's wonderful essay in America on the importance of Catholic schools.  Today, the NYT is reporting on the Archbishop's plan to "save" Catholic schools by moving away from the parish-school model (in terms of governance and funding):

Each elementary school has until now been financed mainly by members of its local parish. But in the proposed reorganization, the cost of educating roughly 56,000 grade school students would be spread among all the parishes, and all the plate-passing churchgoers among 2.5 million Catholics in the archdiocese. . . .

Some of the implications of this plan?

[P]arishes forced to close schools have long been allowed to keep the money from the sale or rental of those properties, since in most cases the buildings were constructed and maintained with parishioners’ dollars. The windfalls provide a financial cushion that has helped sustain many struggling parishes.

Under Archbishop Dolan’s plan, however, all proceeds would go into a common fund for the education of children throughout the archdiocese.

Parent groups and principals also worry that centralized financing of schools will eliminate justification for a small tuition break now granted to students who live in the parish, a common practice in many parochial schools. With publicly financed charter schools already nibbling at the enrollment and viability of some Catholic schools, many school administrators — as well as parents working multiple jobs to pay tuition — are loath to give up any incentive, no matter how small. . . .

So, creative thinking and action like this is, in many places, essential.  That said, the parish model is, in my view, the gold standard.  To be sure, this model requires an engaged and energetic pastor, a congregation that appreciates the centrality of the school to the parish's (and the Church's) evangelical mission, and -- ideally -- smart managers who know how to pool resources with other schools to take advantage of economies of scale, etc.  In today's world, it probably cannot be the only model.  But, the move away from it is a loss. 

Secular Discourse, Religious Discourse, and Steven Smith

By Steve Shiffrin

Last week I highly recommended (here) Steve Smith’s new book, The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse. I do, however, have some significant disagreements. Smith believes that the problems he associates with secular discourse can be remedied by opening up our public discourse to religion. I certainly agree that American universities would have thicker, richer discussions if theologians were part of the discussion. Indeed, the exclusion of religion is part of a larger problem which is the extent to which disciplines seeking to be scientific crowd out normative questions or marginalize those who engage in normative issues, or reduce all normative questions to some form of cost benefit analysis, or treat them exclusively from a philosophical perspective or in legal language.

I do not agree that our public political discourse lacks religious voices. American academics debate about public reason, but American public discourse has always included religious voices. One of the strongest arguments against Rawls in my view is that the public reason doctrine is utterly impractical. Religion will never be absent from public discourse. From the perspective of the left, for example, if the religious right is to use religious arguments, the left must criticize their politics and their theology, not chide them for having bad manners in bringing religious into public life and engaging in public religious silence.

Although I think that religious discourse adds much of importance to political life and could add much to university life, I think that if Smith applied the same rhetorical weapons he applies to secular discourse against religious discourse, similar results would follow. Smith could easily demonstrate that religious discourse is indeterminate and that people smuggle assumptions from elsewhere into their religious arguments. Smith criticizes Nussbaum for the indeterminancy of a concept like human flourishing. But in the moral and political realm there are dozens of questions about human flourishing that turn out to be the same whether human dignity arises from our being created in the image of God or from more mystical support. In the end, I think Smith looks for arguments that cannot be rejected in public discourse. Those arguments in my view are rarely available.



An open thread on the Pope's visit to Great Britain

By Rick Garnett

Pope Benedict has returned to Rome, after what seems to have been a successful visit to the land of St. Thomas More.  More than a few of his statements, it appears, touched on matters of church-state relations, religious freedom, and faith & politics.  (Here is the address at Westminster, in which he invokes St. Thomas More in the very room where the latter was tried.)  So, let's here from bloggers (thanks to Fr. Araujo for his thoughts, below) and readers . . . any thoughts about the visit?  About his message?  Here is Austen Ivereigh, in America; here is Fr. Rutler, at First Things; here is Robert Imbelli, at Commonweal; here is Ross Douthat, in the New York Times; here is David Pryce-Jones, in National Review . . . feel free to suggest your own links in the Comments box.

Here's a bit:

Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Food for thought for bloggers and surfers

By Rick Garnett

Alan Jacobs (Wheaton) writes, in "The Online State of Nature":

[A]s we have come to focus our attention ever more on politics and the arts of public justice, we have increasingly defined our private, familial, and communal lives in similar terms. The pursuit of justice has come to define acts and experiences that once were governed largely by other virtues. It is this particular transformation that Wendell Berry was lamenting when he wrote, “Marriage, in what is evidently its most popular version, is now on the one hand an intimate ‘relationship’ involving (ideally) two successful careerists in the same bed, and on the other hand a sort of private political system in which rights and interests must be constantly asserted and defended. Marriage, in other words, has now taken the form of divorce: a prolonged and impassioned negotiation as to how things shall be divided.” That is, it has become a matter of justice rather than of love, an assertion of rights rather than a self-giving.

This same logic governs our responses to one another on the Internet. We clothe ourselves in the manifest justice of our favorite causes, and so clothed we cannot help being righteous (“Someone is wrong on the Internet”). In our online debates, we not only fail to cultivate charity and humility, we come to think of them as vices: forms of weakness that compromise our advocacy. And so we go forth to war with one another.

This comes close to what Thomas Hobbes, writing four centuries ago, famously called the “war of every man against every man.” As he pointed out, such a war may begin in the name of justice, but justice cannot long survive its depredations. In such an environment, “this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. . . . Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues.”

Chaput, "Catholics in the Next America"

By Rick Garnett

Archbishop Chaput has a worth-reading essay over at First Things, which provides a useful complement to the sometimes-too-quickly-accepted "Catholics finally made it in America after the election of Kennedy and Vatican II" narrative:

. . . In the years since Kennedy’s election, Vatican II and the cultural upheavals of the 1960s, two generations of citizens have grown to maturity. The world is a different place. America is a different place—and in some ways, a far more troubling one. We can’t change history, though we need to remember and understand it. But we can only blame outside factors for our present realities up to a point. As Catholics, like so many other American Christians, we have too often made our country what it is through our appetite for success, our self-delusion, our eagerness to fit in, our vanity, our compromises, our self-absorption and our tepid faith. . . .

Read the whole thing.

The Pope's mission to uphold human dignity

By Rick Garnett

This letter appeared in The Guardian (HT:  First Things):

We welcome His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the UK as both head of state of the Holy See and as leader of the world's 1 billion Catholics and to the Catholic community of this country. We believe that his presence here comes at an urgent and pressing time, highlighting the trends in our country that serve only to denigrate human rights and human dignity. We support him wholeheartedly because in guarding the Deposit of Faith he:

Opposes the destruction of human life in the womb and values human life from conception to natural death.

Opposes the trend towards refashioning the institution of marriage, thereby denigrating its inherent stability, rooted in the natural order, as being between one man and one woman.

Opposes the trend in the UK towards testing on human embryos, experimenting upon them and stripping the unborn of dignity, under a deceitful justification that this form of experimentation will yield medical benefits for mankind.

Has worked tirelessly to change the culture of the Catholic church to take very seriously allegations or incidences of child abuse, setting up child protection procedures and policies which now make the Catholic church the safest place for a child to be.

Promotes a vision of humanity which advocates a culture of life, stability, marriage, lifelong fidelity and love in which children are welcomed, rather than destroyed, in which human beings are open to new life, opposing vigorously a culture that treats the possibility of new life with contempt.

Upholds the innate, God-given dignity of all human beings regardless of their sexual orientation or social background and upholds the rights and dignity of society's most vulnerable, the poor, the starving, the outcasts, prisoners, the mentally ill and distressed, the disabled, elderly, sick and all those who are so often disregarded by the rest of society.

Unfortunately, there's not (yet) been any progress made on my project of getting York Minster back.

Catholic Colleges 20 years after Ex Corde

By Rick Garnett

David House has this essay, "Catholic Colleges 20 Years After 'Ex Corde'", in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  He writes:

Twenty years ago, Pope John Paul II issued Ex corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church), an Apostolic Constitution that defined Roman Catholic colleges and created guidelines to assist them in fulfilling their missions.

Catholic higher education has never been quite the same since. . . .

Clearly, in 20 years of such disputes, Catholic colleges have changed. But how? . . .

First, Ex corde significantly increased awareness of Catholic higher education as a unique segment of postsecondary education in the United States. . . .

Second, a new generation of leaders is emerging in American Catholic higher education. . . .

Third, the landscape of Catholic higher education has changed appreciably in the past 20 years, with the renewal of a vibrant Catholic identity at several colleges, as well as the creation of new Catholic institutions rigorously faithful to church teachings. . . .

We are blessed with a highly diverse system of higher education in the United States. But we lose some of that diversity when Catholic institutions become Catholic in name only. . . .

I think that House is too hard on Notre Dame in the piece (as is, unfortunately, the Cardinal Newman Society, with which House is affiliated), and that he is too quick to buy into the "bad sell-out Notre Dame v. good, orthodox Christendom" dichotomy.  That said, I think the essay is worth a read.  Ex Corde deserves, in my view, more serious attention by Catholic universities and their faculty and administrators than it has received.


Saturday, September 18, 2010

Burning the Koran as a Work of Art

By John M. Breen

Pastor Terry Jones' as yet unfulfilled proposal to burn the Koran (here) continues to ripple through the culture.  Earlier this week there was Justice Breyer's comments that acts like Pastor Jones' burning of the Koran might not be constitutionally protected (see here) -- remarks which he subsequently amended (see here).


Then there is Brad Schaeffer's suggestion over at Big Hollywood (here) that all Pastor Jones need have done to guarantee his speech both constitutional protection and cultural acceptance (at least among certain elites) was to propose that his burning of the Koran was a work of art.  After all, Andres Serrano's work "Piss Christ," the photograph of a crucifix submerged in a vat of urine, earned accolades from the artistic community and a showing at New York's Museum of Modern Art.


Plainly the reaction that Serrano's work received (as well as that given to Chris Olifi's work of the Virgin Mary surrounded by female genitalia and elephant dung, displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art) was very different from the reaction that Pastor Jones received.  But what does this show?  That speech in the form of artistic expression enjoys a higher degree of constitutional protection and cultural acceptance than speech in the form of a religious act directed at a competing faith? That it is culturally acceptable to engage in acts that offend Christians but unacceptable to engage in similar acts when Muslims are the target?  Or does it reflect a prudential judgment by some not to tempt fate, not to stir the honets' nest in the post-9/11 world in which armies from the United States and other traditionally non-Muslim countries occupy or have a substantial presence in a host of Muslim countries?  Is it then that the restrained reaction of Christians in the United States makes them ripe targets for the crudest form of ridicule by their own countrymen while the relatively intemperate response of some followers of Islam make speech that insults Islam out of bounds?


Mind you, I am in no way endorsing Pastor Jones' proposal.  Far from it.  I simply wish to explore the reasons behind these different reactons.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Benedict at Westminster

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

Earlier today, the Holy Father met with British politicians, academics, business leaders, and members of the diplomatic corps at Westminster Hall—the site of the trial of St. Thomas More, the patron of those in political and state life. His address is here.

 

At the outset, the Pope acknowledged that this was no typical address given by a Roman Pontiff by indicating that he was “conscious of the privilege afforded me to speak to the British people and their representatives in Westminster Hall.” He quickly noted his appreciation of the contributions of the common law tradition and the vision of rights and responsibilities held by the state and the individual that include the separation of powers.

 

Not only was the setting historic, but so was the address. The first and only Briton he mentioned by name was Thomas More, and he focused on the “dilemma” faced by More and many others across human history: determining what is owed to Caesar and what is due God. In short, the address presented Pope Benedict’s—Peter’s—views on the authentic role of religious belief within public and political life.

 

In noting the role of moderation in the British manner, the Pope introduced the theme of virtue. Here when talking about “moderation,” he was raising the proper function of forbearance which enables the person exercising this virtue find the “genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it.” Forbearance is expected not only of the citizen but the state as well. This affords all the chance for succeeding in governing and participating in a pluralist society as Britain or the United States. Forbearance, moreover, arrests the appetite of anyone who chooses to assert more than should be asserted: in short, to find the crucial balance of when to claim the right that properly belongs to oneself and when to assume the responsibility that he or she also must shoulder if freedom of speech and of political affiliation, respect for the rule of law, and the equality of all citizens is to mean anything of enduring value. Here the Pope noted the valuable contribution of Catholic social thought—especially the notion of the common good—to the enterprise common to the res publica.

 

At this point, using Thomas More-at-trial-for-treason as the model, he probed the question of what is the common good. In essence, he explored the boundaries of where the state may not impose burdens on its citizens in the name of unity, national consensus, or something else. The state is not without assistance in charting this course because it has access to the great gift of civil discourse and the ethical conclusions to which genuine debate can lead in making the ordinary and the momentous decisions that affect the common good which must always take stock of the goods and the harms posed to the members of the polity. In his view, the formidable challenge to democracy is the circumstance where the only factor determining what are the “moral principles” that guide a people is simply “social consensus.” With that and nothing more, the treasure of democracy will be a fragile plaything easily manipulated by those who can form and un-form this consensus. As he asserted, “the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.” Of course, the ability to appreciate and rely upon the natural moral law is an indispensable tool in identifying and relying upon the firm ethical principles that make nations and the international community just places.

 

In offering some concrete assistance to the British people—and anyone else listening—Benedict further stated:

 

The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers—still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion—but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles... Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person... This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith—the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief—need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization. Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance.

 

 

Benedict had additional blunt words for those who, in the name of a “more perfect society, would advocate the silencing of the religious voice and perspective in public debate. Authentic religious freedom is the concern here. One example of his words: “there are those who argue—paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination—that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square.”

 

These words have poignant meaning in the western democracies of Europe, the United States, and Canada today where conscience protection of many good citizens is being treated in cavalier fashion by the state and by those whose influence on the state is designed to further, at best, problematic agendae in the masquerade of “human rights.” The Holy Father was on the mark exhorting his listeners—wherever they may be—that the perspectives of faithful believers and their well-formed consciences are vital to the success of the genuine debates that reinforce democracy, the rule of law, and the common good that undergird both. Silencing the religious perspective or relegating it to the confines of the private place is the hallmark not of democracy but of the totalitarian state.

 

The Pope was pleased to note some particular instances in which the British polity has contributed nobly to the progress of solidarity for those in need. Moreover, he indirectly expressed his gratitude on the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the Holy See. In concluding his address, Benedict invoked higher authority in saying that the “angels looking down on us from the magnificent ceiling of this ancient Hall remind us of the long tradition from which British Parliamentary democracy has evolved. They remind us that God is constantly watching over us to guide and protect us. And they summon us to acknowledge the vital contribution that religious belief has made and can continue to make to the life of the nation.”

 

I would encourage the members of our Mirror of Justice community to read the Holy Father’s address in full. It is a source of that authentic public spirit which can simultaneously further the City of Man and the City of God. Thomas More helped show the way, and Benedict is following in the path he trod.

 

RJA sj

 

More great stuff from Walker Percy

By Rick Garnett

Here's Walker Percy again, from an essay called "Why Are You Catholic?":  "The reason I am a Catholic is that I believe that what the Catholic Church proposes is true."  Works for me!

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive