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.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty Issues in Connecticut

The Connecticut legislature is taking up a bill to implement the state supreme court's October 2008 decision in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health requiring the recognition of same-sex marriage.  The bill currently contains only a narrow religious-liberty exemption protecting clergy from having to solemnize a same-sex marriage "in violation of [their free exercise] right[s]" -- in contrast to the  exemption in Vermont's recent statute that protects religious conscientious objections to same-sex marriage in other contexts as well.  These issues are plainly among the most important religious liberty matters in our nation right now.

Here are a couple of letters to the speaker of the Connecticut house arguing for meaningful religious liberty exemptions in the bill.  One is from four religious liberty scholars, including Robin Fretwell Wilson (Washington and Lee, drafter), Carl Esbeck (Missouri), and MOJ's own Rick Garnett and Tom Berg, proposing a text of a broader exemption.  The other is from Professor Doug Laycock, explicitly supporting both same-sex marriage and religious liberty and endorsing the text in our letter.

Cheney's consequentialism, cont'd

I agree with Rob that the good results achieved through immoral interrogation practices -- and, I am inclined we should not kid ourselves by thinking that these practices did not yield any good results -- should not be seen as justifying those practices.  But, like Rob says, the consequentialist premises of Mr. Cheney's calls for more disclosure are, it seems to me, more than "disturbingly common"; they are nearly universal.  From the perspective of the Administration, or from the critics of the previous one more generally, what is the argument, really, against disclosing the results of these practices?  I suspect the reluctance to disclose reflects the an uneasy realization that many of the Bush Administration's critics never really minded the detention-and-interrogation practices.

I have been thinking about this, as I read the passionate, non-consequentialist denunciations of some of these practices in the papers, etc.  If only -- I guess this has been Mark Sargent's "seamless garment party" point for years -- we could actually get the non-consquentialists on the same page, across the board.

Cheney's twisted (but disturbingly common) moral reasoning

In response to the release of documents describing our government's interrogation practices, former Vice-President Cheney has asked the government to release documents that "lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."  Why exactly should the fruits of torture be relevant to our evaluation of torture's acceptability?  Would Cheney want to know the medical fruits of embryonic stem cell research or the (purported) sociological fruits of abortion on demand before condeming those practices?

Waldron on Christian Silence on Torture

Revelations regarding the Bush administration's torture practices (e.g., waterboarding two subjects a total of 266 times) brought to mind a powerful and timely essay by Jeremy Waldron in the wonderful recent issue of Catholic University's Journal of Law, Philosophy and Culture.  The essay, titled "The Injury Done by Christian Silence to Public Debate Over America's Use of Torture," is not readily available online, but here's an excerpt: 

The belatedness, hesitancy, and muted nature of these statements [by Christians speaking out on torture] beg for an explanation.  I have heard some people say that church leaders in numerous denominations were reluctant to speak out on torture, until they were sure that criticism on this issue would not diminish the political capital that the Bush administration might need in order to secure the confirmation of conservative nominees to the Supreme Court.  I do not care to make any comment about this suggestion or about the view about pastoral responsibility that it implies. [Given that Alito and Roberts have been confirmed,] Christian moral beliefs might now begin to devote the same attention to torture, as they have in my view rightly devoted in recent years to other great current American public policy issues like abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and abuse of human life in various other forms.

And from the conclusion:

If we think that dignity matters, and matters especially in this context of the debate on government-sanctioned torture, if we think dignity matters because of its connection to the image of God in every human person, then it is necessary to say so and why.  We do this not just as an opportunity to put our identity as Christians on display -- an opportunity we might reasonably decline if it seemed politically imprudent -- but because, in this matter of torture, we fear great wrong will be done, or great wrong or the nature of wrongdoing will be greatly misconceived, unless good people bear witness to the truth.

Monday, April 20, 2009

The Times embarrasses itself -- yet again -- on religion

Here is the NYT account of Arbp. Timothy Dolan's homily at St. Patrick's this past Sunday.  (I was there.)  Sigh.  Is this really the best the "oh so great all the smart people read it" paper can do?  

The homily was, in fact, a straightforward, accessible meditation on "faith and mercy."  For the NYT writer, though, it became (through the magic of the NYT's "control-alt-Catholics-hate-science" function) something . . . different.  And there was this howler:

He did not refer to it, but there is conflict between Catholic dogma and scientific conventions on several fronts, including the medical definition of brain death, the legal definition of the beginning of human life and the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

But, of course, there is no such "conflict" between "science" and "Catholic dogma" (that's "the reasoned moral judgments developed in the Catholic tradition" to you and me) because "science" has absolutely nothing to say about the "legal definition of the beginning of life" or the "ethics of embryonic stem cell research."  Now, if "scientific conventions" means "the political and moral views of those who happen to be scientists" then, well, fine.  But such a conflict is one between two different non-scientific visions, not between "Catholic dogma" and science.  (HT:  Amy Welborn.)

Everybody is somebody

Fr. James Martin's reflections on the Susan Boyle phenomenon are very moving; well worth a read.  (If you have not yet watched Ms. Boyle's performance on "Britain's Got Talent," do it.  It's absolutely beautiful.  As Fr. Martin put it, "[i]t may be the best example of the how God sees us--and the way that the world often doesn't.") 

Clarification re: "the current opposition of most people"

Nothing in my post -- in which I noted the "current opposition of most people" to same-sex marriage -- is inconsistent with Michael's observations that (a) a majority of Americans, according to some polls, anyway, support some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples and (b) the opposition to same-sex marriage (or, at least, a willingness to express such opposition publicly or to pollsters) is waning (though, I suspect, in a way that is not evenly distributed across the states).  This "waning" phenomenon -- which has, I suspect, a number of causes and which I expect to continue -- is the reason I used the word "current."

Call for Papers

CALL FOR PAPERS

NOTRE DAME CENTER FOR ETHICS & CULTURE

10th ANNUAL FALL CONFERENCE

The Summons of Freedom: Virtue, Sacrifice, and the Common Good

November 12-14, 2009

This past November 6-8, the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture hosted
its 9th annual fall flagship conference: The Family: Searching for Fairest
Love. Toward the end of that weekend we canvassed the opinions of the
conference audience regarding themes for the 2009 conference, and,
interestingly, a clear consensus emerged. After such a stimulating
conference focused on the various threats to the family here at the dawn of
the 21st century, many of the conference participants expressed a desire to
expand the discussion of family life outward to include the social,
political, and spiritual common goods in which the common good of the family
is nested. At the same time, there was a clear desire to focus on the
virtues as those moral and intellectual habits that allow us to achieve,
solidify, and defend the network of common goods in which we human beings
realize our happiness. After deliberating on this broad consensus with the
staff here at the Center, I concluded that our friends had advised us well.
Thus I am delighted to write to you today in order, first of all, to
announce the theme for the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture's 10th
annual fall conference: The Summons of Freedom: Virtue, Sacrifice, and the
Common Good. The conference will take place November 12-14, 2009, here at
the University of Notre Dame. 

Final confirmation of the relevance of this conference theme came when we
reflected once again upon the remarks made on the South Lawn of the White
House by Pope Benedict XVI during his apostolic visit to the United States
last April. In those remarks the Holy Father said:

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility.
Americans know this from experience-almost every town in this country has
its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of
freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the
cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good, and a
sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the
courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and
values to reasoned public debate.

Here the Holy Father makes clear certain connections that are of utmost
importance not only to us Americans, but also to anyone trying to sort
through the enormous moral and political complexities of our dizzyingly
globalized world. Pope Benedict underscores that freedom is both gift and
summons, a call toward a particular "cultivation" or cultural formation in
the virtues, virtues that always demand sacrifice-and sometimes even the
total sacrifice of one's life-for the sake of common goods higher than the
merely private goods of the self. Earlier in his remarks the Holy Father had
emphasized that "the great intellectual and moral resolve" that, in America,
ended slavery and brought into being the civil rights movement, took
religious belief as a "constant inspiration and driving force," thus
reminding us of Christianity's role as the true preserver and defender of
human freedom. In saying this, the pope invoked his revered predecessor,
John Paul II, who tirelessly preached that "in a world without truth,
freedom loses its foundation."

In taking up the theme, The Summons of Freedom: Virtue,
Sacrifice, and the Common Good, our 10th annual fall conference will reflect
upon political and legal questions having to do with the very nature of the
political common good, the particular conflicts that arise in trying to
achieve it, and the precarious situation of freedom in the democracies of
advanced modernity. But we will also welcome inquiries into social
structures other than political ones-such as the arts-in which the virtues
may flourish, or which are designed in such a way so as to choke off the
development of genuine virtue in favor of ersatz versions. Particular focus
will be placed on the analogous forms of virtuous self-discipline and
sacrifice required to sustain the human network of common goods.

It is entirely fitting, moreover, that in this tenth anniversary
edition of our annual fall conference we will be highlighting the theme of
virtue.   When, ten years ago, we launched our initial triad of fall
conferences-A Culture of Death (2000), A Culture of Life (2001), Agendas for
Reform (2002)-we took inspiration in large part from the Center's senior
research fellow, Alasdair MacIntyre, and his hugely influential work in
recalling moral philosophy and theology to the tradition of the virtues. How
better to celebrate this anniversary edition of the conference than to
return to the fountain of Professor MacIntyre's work for fresh inspiration,
especially in the year of his eightieth birthday!

Our aim, as always, is to bring together a large number of respected
scholars representing all the main academic fields, from Catholic,
Christian, and secular institutions, to engage in a spirited discussion of
this theme from the perspectives of philosophy, theology and religious
studies, law, history, the social sciences, literature and the arts, as well
as other fields of intellectual inquiry and endeavor. 

We welcome the submission of abstracts drawing on a wide range of moral and
religious perspectives and academic specialties. Special consideration will
be given to submissions of ideas for panel discussions that would bring
together several people to discuss a focused theme. Possible issues to be
explored are:

*       the natural law and American democratic government
*       analogous senses of the common good
*       special demands on courage in contemporary culture
*       the multiple threats of individualism
*       philosophical and theological inquiries into the virtues
*       the riches of Catholic social teaching
*       the global economic crisis and the situation of late modern
capitalism
*       the secularization of contemporary culture
*       imagining the common good: what the arts contribute
*       the fate of Europe
*       stewardship over nature: what does it entail?
*       Catholic approaches to the common good: Maritain, McInerny, and
MacIntyre
*       "Whose common good?": the unborn, the barely born, the disabled, and
the elderly
*       freedom and its relation to truth
*       Pope Benedict on charity and hope
*       the Christian Democratic movement in 20th Century politics
*       Elizabeth Anscombe and the virtue revolution in ethics
*       the sacrifices of family life

One-page abstracts for individual papers should include name, affiliation,
address, and e-mail address (if available). Session presentations will be
limited to twenty minutes for individuals, one hour for panels.

Deadline for submissions is Friday, July 17th.  Notification of acceptance
will be mailed by Monday, August 4th. One-page abstracts, along with your
full contact information, should be emailed to  <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected] or mailed to:

Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture
10th Annual Fall Conference - The Summons of Freedom
1047 Flanner Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556

Law-blog rankings

Prof. Paul Caron has the latest.  MOJ is holding strong.  Still, I can't help thinking we should be outdrawing the "Wills, Trusts, and Estates Blog" (no offense, but . . .).

Sunday, April 19, 2009

"Shadows in Amsterdam"

Sally Thomas has written a moving and sobering essay in the May issue of First Things, well worth tracking down even if you're not a subscriber.  She writes about a former neighbor of hers, a Dutchman who kept in touch in the years after she moved away through occasional letters and homemade Christmas cards.  Thomas recently received from him a slender, self-published book, called Life With and Without my Mother, sharing the news of his 96-year-old mother's death. 

The book is sort of a journal, in which the son describes her, and his, journey toward her eventual decision to die by the voluntary euthanasia that is legal in Amsterdam.  One of the journal entries is:  "I feel the doctors need to give her the helping hand she deserves.  Why let her suffer?  Really, the fun is over for her."  The journal goes on to describe the actual procedure, with relatives gathering by her bedside on a Saturday morning, and the doctor administering the "process implementation." 

Thomas ends the essay with these thoughts:

Again I think of my own friend, of everything I have ever known about him: a kind neighbor, a loving father, a friend who keeps faith with people who move away. I think of the Christmas cards. I think of the tree in the yard. And I cannot square all that with this book which even now is propped beside me on my desk.

But of course, in truth, I can square this equation. I can square it by acknowledging that even the good are fallen and all of us carry death in our hearts. I can square it by acknowledging that the process of extrapolation works both ways: If I can extrapolate cultural suicide from one man in a café, then I can also extrapolate, from the fact of a culture of death, the easy transformation of any decent, law-abiding citizen into a murderer, into a murderer’s willing accomplice. If you build it, they will come, goes the hokey-mystical mantra in the movie Field of Dreams. Similarly, if you legalize it, it will happen.

Safe, legal, and rare. Isn’t that how the abortion chant goes? In reality, as a culture, Americans have allowed abortion to become the standard medical treatment for children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome. Ninety percent of such children are aborted: That’s how heroic our moral struggle has been. That’s how often a loving mother is persuaded that her only merciful option is to assent to the death of her child. It’s a tragic fact of the human mind that, once it begins to entertain a proposition, however outrageous, the proposition becomes not a mere proposition but a sane and rational course of action.

No, make that the sane and rational course of action. From might to may to must: zero to sixty in a cultural instant. In the slipstream, even now, doctors in Amsterdam are packing up their things, and families are filing out of darkened bedrooms into the barren light of a Saturday morning.