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.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Berkowitz on Sarkozy and the veil

Peter Berkowitz discusses, in the Wall Street Journal, the recent announcement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that he intends to secure a ban on the full Muslim veil. 

Mr. Sarkozy's ban on the full veil represents a draconian measure for a free society. Arguably, it is necessary and proper. But it won't prevail without a fight. A few days after Mr. Sarkozy's speech, the Council of State, France's highest administrative body, declared that an outright ban would be hard to enforce, might be unconstitutional, and should be rejected. Meanwhile, a similar ban was unanimously approved by Belgium's home affairs committee last week and will be voted on by the lower house of parliament later this month.

Restrictions on liberty in a free society are always suspect and in need of justification. The best justification is the protection and promotion of freedom. . . .

Given the importance that the French Constitution attaches to liberty and the seriousness of the threat to peace and public order posed by the large, restive and nonassimilating portion of its Muslim population, the veil represents a legitimate concern. Banning it would be justified to the extent that Muslim communities in France use the veil to deprive girls of basic educational opportunities and to prevent women from fulfilling their obligations as citizens, or that terrorists create a security threat by disguising themselves in the veil.

Circumstances, not just principles, are decisive. . . .

Thoughts?

Update:  Jody Bottum, at First Thoughts, has some.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

John Allen's "The Future Church": The Pentecostalism Trend

Over the past two months, the members of the Mirror of Justice have taken turns exploring John Allen's important new book titled “The Future Church.” For each of the ten trends in the modern Catholic Church identified by Allen, one member of the Mirror of Justice has posted a synopsis and commentary, as the start of a discussion thread. This is another in that series. [Note that numbers inside parentheses below are references to pages in the hard-back version of the book.]

Pentecostalism is the tenth trend identified by John Allen as affecting the Catholic Church in his book, “The Future Church.” As Allen explains, “Pentecostalism refers to a movement within Christianity emphasizing direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which often, though not always, is believed to produce spiritual gifts such as healings, visions, and speaking in tongues” (377). As Allen writes, “the motor force of the movement is the conviction that the eruption of the Holy Spirit associated with the Feast of Pentecost in the New Testament did not stop with the close of the biblical era” (380).

Allen reports the rapid global growth of Pentecostalism. “When future histories of Christianity are written,” Allen predicts, “the late twentieth century will probably be known as the era of the Pentecostal Explosion. From less than 6 percent in the mid-1970s, Pentecostals finished the century representing almost 20 percent of world Christianity . . . .” (378).

In many parts of the world, and Latin American in particular, “the Pentecostal wave” has resulted in losses of millions from the Catholic Church (386). “On the other hand,” Allen writes, “the news is not all bad for the Catholic Church. While Pentecostalism eats away at the raw numbers of Catholics, sometimes it can be an index of religious ferment that, in the long run, may also benefit Catholicism” (387). As Allen describes the thinking of Dominican Father Edward Cleary, in the wake of Pentecostalism, “Catholicism is also becoming more dynamic in Latin America, generating higher levels of commitment among those who remain” (387).

Among the members of the Mirror of Justice, I may be one of the better suited to offer some personal comments on this particular trend. Converted to Pentecostalism in college, I was an active member of the movement for nearly a decade, including being married to my wife in an Assembly of God church. I fondly remember those years as involving some of the most powerful spiritual experiences of my life, many having a more enthusiastic emotional impact than what I have experienced during what is now a similar number of years as a Catholic. Both the kind of person I have become and the Christian faith that I possess owe much to my Pentecostal years. But where Pentecostalism spoke to and stirred my heart, the teachings, history, traditions, liturgy, and centuries of public engagement and natural law reasoning found in the Catholic Church spoke to and stimulated my mind.

While little can compete with a Pentecostal worship service for arousing the soul and bringing a sense of a deep personal connection to Jesus, the Catholic Church has no true competitor for conveying the majesty of God and the beauty of the Kingdom of Heaven. While a daily walk with Jesus may come more easily with a Pentecostal soul, the Catholic Church with the Deposit of the Faith left to the Apostles and the intellectual tradition cultivated by the Doctors of the Church have no parallel in equipping the believer with a fuller understanding of both the substance of our Faith and the manner in which a Christian should live in the world.

In sum, the Catholic Church needs Pentecostalism to play the heart strings and enhance a personal spiritual life, but Pentecostalism needs the Catholic Church to provide a direct line to the Apostolic tradition, to provide doctrinal structure, to draw upon a centuries-old tradition of inspired and wise Christian teaching, and to give Christians an intellectual grounding for the use of God-given reason in conjunction with a well-formed conscience.

As do other former Pentecostals (and I think many former Evangelicals as well) who have converted to the Catholic Church, I sometimes find the emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus to be missing in Catholic parish life. While knowing Jesus as a personal Savior is integral to Catholic doctrine and manifested in the Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the one-on-one relationship with our Lord is not always well conveyed in the Catholic Church. I know that many of us from Pentecostal or Evangelical backgrounds worry that the deep and individual spiritual connection the personal sense of walking with Jesus may not be fully experienced by our children, at least those who find themselves in the sometimes stale or routine style of worship found in too many Catholic parishes.

In the “Future of the Church,” John Allen paraphrases Indias Father Paul Parathazham as saying that too many Catholics have never had a “God experience,” “meaning something that got the heart pumping and put them into direct contact with the supernatural realm” (393). As the Latin American bishops acknowledged in 2007, the Catholic Church has in some ways been put to sleep, “leaving it content with the formal externals of religion but often failing to impart any real sense of personal faith” (403).

In sum, the Catholic Church needs to be touched and inspired by the Pentecostal movement. While the evangelical turn in the Catholic Church, discussed elsewhere in John Allens book, together with a fervent and personally dedicated new generation of priests and lay-leaders inspired by John Paul II has started the necessary spiritual renewal in the Church, the Pentecostal spark may keep the spiritual fires burning.

At the same time, the Pentecostal movement is incomplete apart from the Catholic Church. Allen refers to the writings of Kathleen Galvas, a convert to the Catholic Church from the Assemblies of God, in which she well explains that “Catholicisms capacity to root faith in both sentiment and reason is ultimately a more satisfactory bulwark” against those “moments of spiritual aridity or doubt” that afflict all Christians (399). Allen further cites Galvas as questioning “claims by Pentecostals to do away with the need for clergy intermediaries by insisting that each believer can be directly illuminated by Scripture turns out to be hollow” (399). In fact, Pentecostal worship groups and communities tend to revolve around certain charismatic (pun intended) leaders whose teachings may become nearly infallible, in practice if not in theory.

Because no cohesive community that hopes to share a coherent message can continue by allowing full rein to each persons own independent visions, the danger of spiritual chaos will be averted, if at all, by accepting the superior understanding and mature spiritual connection of elders in the faith. Claims of revelation must always be tested against the experience and traditions of the community, which in the case of the Catholic Church have been passed down through the Deposit of the Faith from the early days of the Church. In the end, there is no substitute, in terms of both practical necessity and the confirmation of Christs own example, to the Apostolic Succession.

Another downside to the growth of Pentecostalism articulated by John Allen raises the question of its staying power in the lives of its converts. “While public fascination surrounds the spectacular number of entries into Pentecostalism,” Allen warns, “there hasn't been as much attention to what some experts say is an equally remarkable number of exits” (380). “For a significant percentage of new converts, Pentecostalism may be a way station between nominal membership in a traditional church and a complete lack of religious affiliation . . . .” (380).

The very things that make Pentecostalism as a separate denomination so attractive at first a deeply personal experience, an informal worship setting, and the apparent lack of strong traditions and a clear leadership structure also limit its ability to remain vibrant when members move beyond the initial emotional experience and seek continuing nourishment, for the mind as well as the heart. By wedding the Pentecostal experience to the venerable traditions and Petrine structure of the Catholic Church, the Christian is fed both emotionally and intellectually.

Although “hostility to Catholicism is a real current in some Pentecostal thought” (382), the compatibility of the Charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit and the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church are becoming more apparent to those both inside and outside the formal Church. The essence of the Pentecostal message should be at home in the Catholic Church.

In fact, as Allen observes, Charismatic Catholics may now constitute 11 percent of the Churchs faithful (384). In the United States, “with Hispanic Catholics nearly five times more likely to take part in charismatic activities,” Allen quotes a national Hispanic Christian leader as saying that, in America, “'[t]here are more Catholic Pentecostals than Pentecostal Pentecostals'” (384). Allen notes that “[m]any Catholic leaders have supported the Charismatic movement in the Church, seeing in it a means to promote deeper faith and practice” (385). And well they should. At the same time, Catholic leaders properly insist that charismatic activities must not supplant the Sacraments (386).

As another point of vital importance to the future of any people of faith, Allen emphasizes that “[o]ne of the great strengths of Pentecostalism is its capacity to form a sense of community” (407). With the decline of ethnic neighborhoods and geographically-centered parishes, the Catholic Church must foster stronger communities of deeply shared Catholic meaning and spiritual experience, such as sub-groups within a parish that come together for Bible study and to share one anothers burdens. We must find ways, both within and outside the parish, in which to build community and demonstrate our concern for the welfare of each brother and sister in Christ.

In this respect, there is a crucial role for Catholic legal education, in building true communities of faculties and students with a shared mission. In addition to equipping our students with a superior legal education and affirming their integration of faith and profession, we should serve as continuing support centers for graduates, students, and friends, a place where they can always return for further nourishment and for strength when they are weary.

Greg Sisk

Another entry in the MOJ to-and-fro about the claim of media bias

[Lifted from NCR's blog, called NCR Today, where John Allen, among many others, posts.]

That's not fantasy; it's fact.

History professor Jonathan Zimmerman adds some prespective to the recent charges of media bias and anti-Catholicism that some in the church heierarchy have leveled at the media and critics of how the church has handled cases of sexual abuse by clergy:  "As the church's defenders note, America has a long, hideous history of anti-Catholic bigotry. But whereas earlier attacks on Catholics were based on fantasy, the abuse scandal is altogether real. By ignoring the difference, church apologists end up diminishing the real discrimination that Catholics suffered in the past."  Read Zimmerman's full piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer: Anti-Catholic bias irrelevant to scandal.

Interesting reflections on why monogamous marriage matters ...

... and on celebrity threats to monogamous marriage, here.

[Cross-posted at ReligiousLeftLaw.]

That our joy may be complete

In a recent edition of America (subscription required), Kathleen Norris has an Easter reflection titled "Something Wondrous is Afoot."  As we begin this Easter season, she provides rich food for prayerful reflection.  Her insights are also relevant, I think, to the MOJ discussion of abuse.  And, her Here is a sample:

 

On the way to becoming Christian, we are all learners. When it comes to fully accepting what it means to be a Christian, I am not a particularly good student. For one thing, my prayer life is much too haphazard for a Benedictine oblate. If I am fortunate enough to be visiting a monastery, going to the Liturgy of the Hours every day, I do fine; but left to my own devices I falter.

The writers of the early church are generally of more use to me than modern theologians when I am trying to make theological concepts come alive. John Chrysostom, for example, packs his dogma into plain speech and concrete imagery. A human voice comes through. The homily he preached in Constantinople before being forced into an exile from which he would never return is fortified with biblical allusion and still heart-rending more than 1,600 years later: “Christ is with me, whom shall I fear? Though waves rise up against me, the seas, the wrath of rulers: These things are no more to me than a cobweb.” He encourages the congregation not to lose hope because: “Where I am, there also are you; where you are, there too am I; we are one body.... We are separated by space, but we are united by love. Not even death can cut us apart. For even if my body dies, my soul will live on and will remember my people.”

To me, this is Easter truth speaking through ordinary language. To someone else, it might seem the ravings of a fool. For we are always free to choose what meaning to give to the events that shape us, to opt for fear or hope, despair or joy, bitterness or love.

Two men I knew both received a dire prognosis, one of liver cancer, the other of stage IV melanoma. The man with liver cancer, a tavern owner and petty criminal, survived much longer than anyone expected; he had several years of remission. He told me that on his worst days in the hospital he promised himself that if he ever got out again, he would devote himself to “looking out for number one.” And that is exactly what he did; living selfishly and self-indulgently until the day he died, alone and mostly unlamented.

The other man was a Benedictine monk who died just three months after his initial diagnosis. “I realized,” he wrote to friends, “that everything I’ve experienced since my original bout with melanoma 20 years ago has been a grace...not a bad realization for a monk. I have never felt so surrounded by love. This is the most grace-filled time in my life, an unending source of hope and well-being at the core of my being—pure gift.” In thanking the many who had been praying for him, he wrote: “Thanks for helping me to choose life in this time of fear and uncertainty. Something wondrous is afoot. I just can’t see it yet.”

A man named Paul, facing execution, once wrote from a jail cell: “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice” (Phil 4:4). A man named Jesus, on the night before he died, ate his last meal with friends, talked up a storm and no doubt startled the company by proclaiming, “I am saying these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete” (Jn 15:11). Wondrous things afoot: an inexpressible but ever-present love, a joy so profound that even death cannot diminish it. Happy Easter!

 

"Why I Stay in the Church: A Parable from a Progressive Catholic"

The progressive Catholic is the novelist Mary Gordon.  She writes:

"Of the fate of contemporary Catholics, Flannery O'Connor once said that we must suffer at least as much from the Church as for it. Certainly, the past weeks have been a cause for suffering for Catholics of all political stripes, but the suffering takes on a particular flavor for progressives. We are deluged by questions from those who think of themselves as our colleagues and comrades. Actually, only one question: 'How can you still stay in the Church?'

When I answer, I insist that the terms be defined properly. It is an error of vocabulary to assume that 'the Church' is a direct synonym for 'the hierarchy,' 'the bishops,' 'the Vatican.' Those of us of a certain age remember traveling abroad during the Vietnam years when we would be asked, 'How can you still call yourself an American?' Our answer was: we are not the White House. We are not the Pentagon. We are the people protesting; America is larger than your words suggest. Why must I believe that the church is Pope Benedict and not the courageous nuns who took real risks to defy the American bishops on health care in the name of the poor whom they serve? Some say we owe the passage of health care to these brave women; their position would not have been so effective if they had been speaking not as nuns, whose lives had been dedicated to the Church, but, say, as a group of nurses or social workers. The Church has a very long history; this history includes a fair share of scoundrels; it also includes those whose heroism was achieved despite the opposition of the official Church: Joan of Arc and Oscar Romero, to name only two....

How do some of us stay in the Church? In grief, in sadness, with a resolve not to be shut out by those who say they are speaking in the name of the Father. We just don't believe them. The Church is not an institution; it is the people, people who are now wounded and scandalized, not only by the sexual crimes of priests, but more important, by the cover-up by those in power. In 1959 the election of Pope John XXIII was a surprise, a kind of miracle. It happened once. It could happen again. We wait, in stubborn hope, for the return of miracle. We want to make sure some of us are at home when it happens."

The entire statement is here.

[Cross-posted at ReligionLeftLaw.]

How the Religious Right Promotes Abortion

That's the title of a new post by Andrew Koppelman.  You can read it (and, if you want, comment) at ReligionLeftLaw or at Law, Religion, and Ethics

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Bart Stupak, Revisited

Making health-care reform “abortion neutral” was never going to be easy. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) was the first to demonstrate that it was possible, practically and politically. He also showed that a prolife politician could wield power within the Democratic Party—and under the purview of the “most radically pro-abortion president in history,” as Barack Obama is known to a certain segment of the prolife movement.

Senators Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) came up with another way to exclude federal funding of abortion in their chamber’s reform bill. But at that point the Stupak Amendment took on a life of its own. Lobbying groups who hoped to stop “Obamacare” insisted that the Senate bill would be acceptable only if the House added Stupak’s language—a process that would send the bill back to the Senate, where Republicans could filibuster it to death.

Stupak expressed reservations about the Senate bill’s abortion language, as did the U.S. bishops and the National Right to Life Committee (sometimes jointly). His stubbornness led to Obama’s signing an eleventh-hour executive order clarifying that the Senate bill’s alleged ambiguities would be interpreted according to the principle embodied in the Hyde Amendment: no federal funding for elective abortions. According to Obama’s order, Hyde will indeed apply to all funding for community health centers, and existing conscience protections will be upheld.

For pursuing prolife measures within the Democratic Party, Stupak became a target of prochoicers, who accuse him of attempting to limit “women’s rights.” Now, having helped pass health-care reform, he is under attack from the Right. He has been called a coward and a traitor. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), desperate to burnish his right-wing credentials in an election year, sneered that Stupak “folded like a cardboard suit in the rain.”

In fact, Stupak has shown consistency and courage, not only in resisting the prochoice majority in his party, but also in resisting Republican efforts to use his prolife convictions to sabotage health-care reform. After the reform bill passed last month, House Republicans filed a motion to add the language of the Stupak Amendment—a last-ditch bid to return the bill to the Senate. Stupak took the floor to object that their use of his name was “nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health care.” Republicans booed and jeered as he insisted, “It is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortions.... This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life.”

Stupak meant what he said all along: he wanted to extend health-care coverage without expanding direct federal funding of abortion. He succeeded, despite the best efforts of those who claimed to support him. For being that rarest of creatures—a politician who can hold firm to his principles and still seek honest compromise—he deserves prolifers’ gratitude and respect.

"Life is Good" (Take 2)

I am re-posting this, because I forgot to open comments on the original.  And, I would welcome comments . . .

Here is a short essay I did, for Notre Dame Magazine, which tries to connect "Jake" (the stick-figure guy with the smile who's on all the t-shirts), Nick Wolterstorff, and human dignity.  The bumper of my Jeep makes an appearance.  (Sorry for the long excerpt.)  Comments welcome!

I cannot help it — I love “Jake,” the distilled-to-his-essence stick-figure with a wide, winning grin, never-off shades and a disarming, simple message: “Life is good.”

Yes, he’s probably, to put it mildly, a bit overexposed. In fact, he’s everywhere. In airport gift shops and upscale shopping malls, on bumper stickers and backpacks, on doggie Frisbees, gold balls and baby bibs, there’s Jake — deftly managing a sizzling grill, cruising on a mountain bike, relaxing in a hammock, strolling through the woods, strumming a guitar. “Life is good,” he reports through the medium of carefully distressed “vintage” T-shirts. His sure seems to be.

It would be easy, but mistaken, to dismiss Jake as a knock-off of Harvey Ball’s “Have a Nice Day” smiley-face. The latter’s expression is vacant and phony — stoned, maybe — but Jake’s is genuinely happy. The smiley-face is a logo, with no story, plans or dreams, but Jake is the buddy who calls to cajole you into skipping work for a powder-day. “Have a nice day” is a limp, tepid, vague suggestion. “Life is good” is a bold blend of laid-back vibe and affirmation of the cosmos.

Jake is not just a stylized Crocodile Dundee (“No worries!”) or Bobby McFerrin (“Don’t worry, be happy!”), who is relieved to report that things aren’t too bad. He’s no slacker-nihilist, shrugging off what comes with a “Whatever, dude.” No, for Jake, life is Whitmanesque — it is large, it contains multitudes, and he likes it. It is good.

No doubt, Jake’s success is a tribute to lifestyle marketing, but his is more than a “lifestyle” claim. It is, I think, also a theological one, and I like to imagine that he knows it. When God made the world — the “dome in the middle of the waters,” the “two great lights,” the “great sea monsters” and “all kinds of creeping things” — we are told that “He saw how good it was.” Jake invites us to suppose that God’s verdict on bike rides through the backcountry and sausages cooked over fire would be — indeed, that it is — the same. No Manichean darkness here: Jake’s spirituality is joyfully incarnational. His world, like Gerard Manley Hopkins’, is “charged with the grandeur” — the goodness — “of God.”

As a general matter, I am leery of bumper stickers, even ones that tout candidates I support or causes to which I am committed. I would hate to undermine them with a sloppy lane-change, an ill-timed nose-scratch or a long-delayed car wash. My “Life is good” decal, though, seems perfect. It says it all — or, at least, it says a lot — and, really, who could object?

Secret message

To be honest, however, my sticker has a double meaning. As I see it, I’m not only safely throwing in my lot with Jake, and reminding my fellow drivers of the joys to be found in and through guitars, barbeques and hiking boots. I like to think that I am also proposing sneakily what I suppose I am too nervous to proclaim more straightforwardly (on my car, anyway): Every human person is precious and inviolable, every human person has dignity and worth, and every human person — old and young, strong and frail, vulnerable and independent, loved and lonely, innocent and guilty — ought to be welcomed in life and protected by law.

But am I really saying all that? Maybe I’m kidding myself. Sure, I want to think that Jake and his motto make it easier to invite my fellow drivers-citizens to consider and embrace what others’ bumpers say more explicitly, but is it just wishful, self-justifying thinking to imagine that hearts and minds are moved, pervasively and comprehensively, in the pro-life direction by even a contagiously good-natured cartoon-guy’s pro-“life” catch-phrase? And does Jake’s message really capture, or even map onto, what I and so many others mean by “pro-life”?

In his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II challenged all people of good will to take on the “responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.” Does my display of Jake’s good-natured profession cut it?

Maybe not. The pro-life message, after all, is not — that is, it is not only — that there’s a lot of fun to be had in “life,” that we should hope, look and reach for many pleasant experiences. It’s a call to communion, love and relationship, not just to hedonism. The good news that is the Gospel of Life is not just that not all of the stuff in the universe is inanimate but is instead teeming with metabolism, reproduction, growth and adaptation. It’s amazing and wonderful, certainly, that so much in the world is alive, and only a crank would refuse to marvel at, even revel in, its dynamism.

Still, “to be unconditionally pro-life” would seem to involve more than standing duly impressed before the workings of DNA and photosynthesis. No, the pro-life claim is about us, and not only about the arenas in which we struggle, the contexts through which we move and the stories we construct. It is about the amazing mystery and gift that is the person who lives — and laughs and cries and prays and plays — and not only about the no-doubt impressive facts that cells multiply and neurons fire.

The pro-life proposal, what it is that I want Jake to be saying when he revels in the goodness of life, is that the individual human person — every one — matters. Each person — every one — carries, in C.S. Lewis’ words, the “Weight of Glory.”

“There are no ordinary people,” Lewis insisted; “You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations — these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.”

The claim that every person matters and has worth might seem unremarkable. Perhaps it is one of those “duh” observations that is not even worthy of a bumper sticker, let alone a pop-culture phenomenon like Jake. It is, certainly, the purported premise of the law and morality of human rights and of our American civil religion (“with liberty and justice for all”). But can this claim, this premise, bear the weight we ask it to carry? Is there anything to it? What’s so special about us, actually?

My Notre Dame colleague Tom Shaffer has said that every human person is “infinitely valuable, relentlessly unique, endlessly interesting.” This is true, I’m sure. But what is it, exactly, that makes it true, and not just wishful thinking or a delusion of grandeur?

The great worth

We profess — Jake and I, and the rest of our pro-life friends — that the dying and elderly deserve more, and better, than a chemically hastened, hospital-bed-vacating death, but what makes this true, as opposed to merely squeamish or sentimental?

We affirm that even the commission of the most grave, most horrible crime should not be enough to push the criminal beyond all hope for reconciliation, repentance and relationship, but what saves this affirmation from being so much soft-hearted, excessively expensive fluff?

We insist, flying in the face of a culture that holds out ability and achievement as the criteria for a worthy life, that a severely disabled unborn child is no less welcome, and no less inviolable, than the most gifted protégé, but why isn’t this insistence mere preening or self-indulgence?

“What is man,” the Psalmist asked God, “that thou are mindful of him?” What indeed. After all, he noted, human beings “are but a breath” and “their days are like a passing shadow.” More than a few contemporary philosophers would agree with John Searle, who insists that the world “consists entirely of physical particles in fields of force,” some of which have become organized into “certain higher-level nervous systems.” We are, in other words, electrified sacks of fluid, meat-puppets in particle-clogged space. What is so “good” about that?

It is, to say the least, an unsettling question. We are committed, today, to the morality and language of human rights and human dignity. We believe, in Nicholas Wolterstorff’s words, that “human beings, all of them, are irreducibly precious.” This is true, if a bit wordy for a bumper sticker. But how is it true, and what makes it true?

Many would say that our “reason,” “autonomy” or “capabilities” do the work. We are valuable and inviolable, the arguments go, because of the impressive, inspiring things we do, or at least can do. To be sure, we can do amazing things, we do have characteristics and capacities that set us apart and above so much else that is. But these are not enough. Many of us are broken, disabled, unimpressive; all of us are dependent, vulnerable and incomplete.

The Psalmist, again, gave thanks that he was “fearfully, wonderfully made,” but even a well-designed meat-puppet is, well, just that. Looking through a microscope, one might mistake us for chimps, if not worms. What gives us — what gives life — the great worth that we have and that saves our talk of rights, dignity and the sacred from being so much pretty nonsense?

Remember here the children’s book The Velveteen Rabbit. A little boy’s toy becomes, over the years, “old and shabby, but the Boy loved him just as much. He loved him so hard that he loved all his whiskers off, and the pink lining to his ears turned grey, and his brown spots faded. He even began to lose his shape, and he scarcely looked like a rabbit any more, except to the Boy. To him he was always beautiful, and that was all that the little Rabbit cared about.” Eventually the Rabbit is made “Real” by having been loved by the Boy.

In a similar way, Wolterstorff has argued, God’s love for us is what makes it true that we are precious, sacred and have worth. Our dignity is real; it is not just a convenient, reassuring construct. But, it is not achieved, earned or performed. It is freely bestowed and lovingly given. Our human rights do not attach to our own capacities but instead to the “worth bestowed on human beings by that love.”

This is what John Paul II called the “moral truth about the human person,” that the “greatness of human beings is founded precisely in their being creatures of a loving God” and not self-styled authors of their own destiny. That in which we so justifiably take pride is also, and always, a call to humility. Not one of us, in the ways that really count and matter, is self-made, and thank God for that.

Life is good, then, and it is because we love and are loved.

That almost does sound like it could work on a bumper sticker.

A must-read interview with a worthy and admirable American Catholic

Here.

You know who I'm talking about . . .

There is no doubt that Mike Krzyzewski has enjoyed success in his life. But he also knows that a lot of people had something to do with that success.

“I feel that the success that I’ve had in my life is a result of God-given talents that were helped to be developed by a number of people and that I need to use those talents in a proper way. To me that’s living your faith.”

So at the end of the day, what would Coach K like to be remembered for? Is it the titles and the awards? No. Mike Krzyzewski says he would like people to remember “just the fact that I’m an honest man, a truthful person and somebody who cares about people, not just himself.” Chances are they’ll probably also note that he won a few basketball games along the way.