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, July 10, 2009

Back to Honduras ...

Very interesting piece in The New Republic (7/10/09), by David Fontana of George Washington Law, here.

Honduras and Constitutional Democracy

Here in the United States, the removal of President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras has prompted disparate reactions from the political right and political left. Conservatives (fearing the influence of Hugo Chavez and his authoritarian brand of politics, with which Zelaya had aligned himself) have tended to side with the coup leaders. Liberals (fearing a return to the era of Latin American military coups) have tended to side with Zelaya.

But both sides are missing a layer of complexity, one that suggests the Honduras crisis isn't an easy case of heroes and villains. What is taking place in Honduras is actually a debate over an old and difficult question: Can a democratically enacted change to a constitution be itself unconstitutional?

[Read the rest, here.]

"When Benny Met Barry"

Rick's friend David Gibson is at it again, over at dotCommonweal, here.


Benedict and Barack.jpg


Family Ties: What do we think?

Over at Prawfsblawg, Dan Markel, Ethan Lieb, and Jennifer Collins have put up their "intro freaky post" describing their recent book project, "Privilege or Punish."  As much as I like the authors, I have to agree that the post -- and, indeed, the project -- is kind of "freaky."  Here's a bit:

we basically claim that the state should exercise substantial caution and indeed hostility to most attempts to distribute these benefits or burdens based on one’s family status. This is a controversial stance, but we conclude that in many circumstances there are simply too many costs to the criminal justice system when it gives special treatment based on one’s family ties or responsibilities.

Moreover, even when the criminal justice system does not suffer in terms of its ability to reduce crime and to impose accurate and adequate punishment, the signals of such family ties, burdens, and benefits are often expressly denigrating the lives of those who don’t live by the rules of a heterosexual and repro-normative conception of family life. Our view is that a criminal justice system in a liberal democracy has to be especially careful about sending these messages of denigration and inequality through its most awesome instruments of power, coercion, and condemnation.
To be sure, we might think the law does a bad job, in specific instances, of taking account, in an appropriate way, the reality -- and it is a reality -- that persons are situated in families, which are themselves natural human societies.  But it is not at all clear to me what it would be about any attractive conception of "liberal democracy" that should make it the case that the state not only should not, but may not, take account of, and appropriately respect and protect, this reality.
 
Thoughts?

Robert George on the marriage debate

Here, at Public Discourse,  is an interview with Prof George, about the state-of-play in the debate over re-defining marriage to include same-sex relationships.  A taste:

[An] insidious and brutal way in which many advocates of sexual liberalism deploy cultural power in the cause of redefining marriage is by depicting their opponents as bigots. Across the country, they have pursued a strategy of intimidation against anyone who dares to dissent from their position in a public way. Their appalling treatment of Carrie Prejean is merely one example. Their relentless personal attacks on her were designed to send a clear message to others who aspire to succeed in any area of public life, from beauty pageants to careers in journalism and politics: “If you oppose us, if you have the temerity to express support for the conjugal conception of marriage, we will smear you as a rube and a bigot, make your life hell, and do our best to ruin you.”

Ninth Circuit rejects pharmacists' religious-conscience claims

The Los Angeles Times has the story, here:

The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

At First Things, Wesley Smith warns that (among other things) the decision "also means that all pharmacists in the state must dispense death to terminally ill patients in Washington who receive lethal prescriptions."  Paul Moses, at Commonweal, weighs in here,

I wonder whether Pres. Obama's much-touted-by-some-Catholics "reasonable conscience clause" would protect these pharmacists?

Hibbs on the new encyclical

Here is philosopher Thomas Hibbs, commenting on the encyclical:

“Democracy in good faith no longer has any essential reproach to make against the church. From now on it can hear the question the church poses, that it alone poses, the question, Quid sit homo?—What is man?”

The French political philosopher Pierre Manent frames in quite dramatic terms the situation of the Church in the democratic era. Amid the shallow media debates over whether the latest papal encyclical, Pope Bendict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate, leans left or right, there is a good chance that readers will miss the central philosophical claim of the document: “the social question has become a radically anthropological question” (italics in the original text). By subordinating all economic systems to the question of the common good, understood as integral human flourishing, the document opposes reductionism, whether in theory or practice, in liberal or conservative forms.  

There is a lot of talk already about the document’s dizzying capaciousness, the way it seems to want to discuss everything and embrace almost everything, even things that seem on the surface incompatible. It is easy enough to affirm the Pope’s affirmation of both subsidiarity and globalism, but the document, largely because it does not say enough about the nature of the common good, leaves us guessing a bit as to the principles needed to spell out the relationship. Further reflection about these matters would have to begin, not just from the question, “What is man?”, but also from the queries such as, “What does it mean for human persons to hold things in common?” and “What are the peculiar forms of social life in which human persons now hold—and can learn how better to hold—things in common?”    

Even to raise these questions is to sense how distant we are from the world of contemporary political discourse, where the tendency is toward the privatization, not just of religion, but of questions concerning the good, individual and communal. Indeed, a pressing question for a document such as Caritas in Veritate is this: why is it so easily ignored by the wider society, both by the media, political leaders, and ordinary citizens? Catholics fawning over Obama will quickly retort that he has embraced Catholic social thought, especially in the form of Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment.” Aside from the fact that he ignores Bernardin’s insistence on the non-negotiable priority of the sanctity of human life, as well as Benedict’s claim that “openness to life is at the center of true development,” Obama seems to need instruction in the dictionary definition of “seamless.”  

For Manent, democracy—increasingly defined by the pursuit of a freedom unfettered by any external restraint, authority, or law—“neither wants to nor can respond” to the questions raised above. The Pope is not quite so despairing, but his own document gives us reason to think that its teaching will at best be distorted when not smugly dismissed. Benedict makes, as some in the media have noticed, numerous references to the current economic crisis, but he also speaks of other crises, including the one arising from a Promethean spirit of technological mastery, the will to remake both human life and the natural environment according to our unrestrained desires. Benedict astutely points to numerous signs of the fraying of the project of mastery. Our task, as sympathetic readers, is to communicate the teaching of Caritas in Veritate to others, so that they in turn may be better able to articulate the hopes and fears of our time—a time in which the meaning of humanity itself is very much in doubt.

Thomas S. Hibbs is Distinguished Professor of Ethics & Culture and Dean of the Honors College at Baylor University. 

Horizontal Catholicism & the Economy of Communion

Thanks, Michael P., for the link to John Allen’s latest, in which he discusses, among other things, John Coleman’s analysis of the “paradox” that “Roman Catholicism should be the religious actor best positioned to engage the issues raised by globalization, but aside from debt relief, its impact so far has been marginal” and set out the theory that official Church structures "may lack the inner organizational flexibility for rapid and networked response to global issues as they arise," and surmises that "semi-autonomous and more local Catholic sub-groups will be the major actors in activist global networks."

Allen wonders about the role of what he calls "horizontal Catholicism" – “a host of movements, associations, ad-hoc networks, and religious communities, engaged in the issues raised by globalization in a staggering variety of ways. These malleable, rapid-response forms of Catholicism will exercise a steadily more important role in framing Catholic social activism as the century unfolds.”

I think that Allen is on to something.  Having followed the developments in the Focolare Movement’s “Economy of Communion” project since its inception in 1991, I sense that one of the reasons its framework is so solid it that it is able to combine a flexible and responsive local presence with a unified international vision and cultural approach, as I have discussed here, here and here.

Development needs within local communities are assessed within a framework of a broader commitment on the part of everyone – both those who share and those who receive material resources – to live a “culture of giving.”  The sharing of material resources is always linked to the commitment to build a true sense of family within the community, a place to share stories about how God’s loving intervention has come to meet material needs, and inspired further efforts to be a “gift” for others in a variety of ways.  These stories, in turn, foster continued commitment in the part of those who operate the Economy of Communion businesses throughout the world.  The structure is flexible and responsive not only in a practical sense, but also in its capacity to build authentic human relationships, which then serve as a foundation for social and economic development.

Based on this somewhat anecdotal experience, I think there’s much for us to mine in Allen’s statement, “The experience and insight of this horizontal Catholicism might also become a fertile locus teologicus, meaning a valuable foundation for new trajectories in Catholic social doctrine.”

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Nixon:China::Benedict XVI:Capitalism

Just a (tortured?) thought ...

I've retired, so what else should I be doing ...

The Pew Forum, The Tablet, Commonweal, NCR ...

Unlike Rick, after all, and alas, I'm an old man, surely incapable, unlike Rick, of rock-climbing in the Tetons.

National Catholic Reporter

The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on


Note: John Allen is in Rome covering the visit Friday of President Barack Obama to Pope Benedict XVI. Watch the NCR web site for his breaking news reports.]

Now that Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical on the economy, Caritas in Veritate, is finally out, the predictable war of spin is well underway. Partisan reactions on both the Catholic left and right already seem clear, which might be referred to as the "Khrushchev letter" and the "Blue Meanies" strategies respectively.

[Read the rest, here.]

Fraternity and the modern age

Clifford Longley

Released on the eve of the G8 Summit, the Pope’s encyclical calls for a new world financial order guided by ethics, with a concern for humanity and a focus on justice. It emphatically unites the Church’s roles of spreading the Gospel with working for social justice Free