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, March 30, 2009

Stricherz on overturning Roe

Over at America magazine's blog, Mark Stricherz explains why "overturning Roe would save lives and be popular."  (In so doing, he fleshes out his disagreement with those who, like Michael Sean Winters, David Gibson, and many others, believe the opposite.)

Stricherz is quite correct, in my view, when he states that public-opinion data suggesting that Americans support Roe is -- because Americans do not know what Roe means -- unreliable.  A healthy majority of Americans supports an abortion-regulation regime that, under current law, legislatures may not enact.

To return, though, to my hobby-horse:  It is not a strong argument against overturning Roe that overturning Roe might not reduce the number of abortions dramatically.  (That said, I am entirely confident that it would reduce the number of abortions.)  Roe distorted our constitutional law and our politics and constitutionalized (unjustly) an unsound -- or, at the very least, highly contested -- moral premise.  It should be overruled even if it leaves open the possibility, as it certainly does, that We the People will decide, at least in some places, to continue permitting elective abortions.

comment on Woodward and the ND/Obama controversy

Kenneth Woodward's comment on the ND/Obama controversy largely depends, it seems to me, on the idea that Notre Dame is not really honoring President Obama by awarding him an honorary degree. He refers to the degree as the "customary honorary degree" and later notes that Obama "will receive an honorary degree because it is the custom, not as a blessing on any of his decisions." Woodward's comment notes that Notre Dame is "allowing its graduating class to hear from the President" (is anyone saying that President Obama ought to be prevented from making his views known?) and he (Woodward) seems to view the graduation ceremony as a debate between Obama and Glendon. (Does the Laetare Medal recipient deliver a speech at graduation?)

If Notre Dame had invited President Obama to speak at Notre Dame to participate in an exchange of views with Mary Ann Glendon, I doubt whether there would be a firestorm. The objections to Notre Dame's actions are not really about a desire to avoid engagement or about shunning the world as evil.

The objections seem largely the result of the perception that Notre Dame is in fact honoring President Obama by awarding him an honorary degree. I agree that there is room for prudential judgments. What if the public official was the Secretary of State whose public duties and actions were not inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching but who had expressed opposition to Church teaching on matters--e.g., Humanae Vitae--not relevant to that official's public duties and actions? I think, then, that one could make the argument that the award of an honorary degree to such a person should not reasonably be viewed as creating scandal or creating confusion about Church teaching on moral issues. (I wonder, though, why Catholic schools think it is so important to award honorary degrees to high profile public officials. Maybe the schools ought to rethink the whole matter.) But that doesn't seem to be the case with an award to President Obama. Woodward himself notes that Obama's actions have "violated fundamental Catholic principles on the protection of human life." (I wonder why Woodward refers to these principles as "Catholic"--which seems to leave the impression that the views are theological in nature?)

Richard M.

Why Notre Dame is Right to Welcome Obama

For reflections on why Notre Dame should welcome Obama from Kenneth Woodward, a Notre Dame graduate and Newsweek religion editor for 38 years, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901352.html?hpid=opinionsbox1.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Painter on torture: "It's Just Plain Wrong"

There are some interesting posts up, by Prof. Richard Painter, over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

"Atheist Delusions"

This should be good.  David Hart is one of the best writers around, I think.  (HT, and a review:  R. Reno at First Things).

"The Pope May be Right"

In today's Washington Post (Page A15), Edward Green writes:

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and -- along with contraception -- female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics -- nowhere else.

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. ...

HT:  Ryan Anderson

Michael Czerny, SJ, on the Pope, Africa, Condoms, and AIDS

Jesuit father Michael Czerny directs the African Jesuit AIDS Network (AJAN).  For anyone interested in delving beyond the NY Times simplistic (and distorted) headlines and op-eds, his essay, "A Human and Spiritual Wake-up Call," in Thinking Faith, the online Journal of the British Jesuits, is well worth the read.

Here are a few quotes from the essay:

Vatican officials estimate that around the world the Catholic Church now provides more than 25 percent of all care administered to those with HIV/AIDS. The proportion is naturally higher in Africa, nearly 100% in the remotest areas. Let an HIV-positive Burundian on antiretroviral drugs explain the service:

When we go to other places, they only see numbers in us. We become hospital cases to be dealt with. We are problems. We lose our sense of dignity and worth. Yet we never feel that when we come to our Church programme. This is because we get a complete approach to our problems, whether spiritual, medical, mental, social or economic. (Personal testimony)

*    *    *

Facing not only AIDS but multiple crises in most corners of the continent, Africans have good reason, based on experience, to believe in the Church’s bold vision for them.

Having pointed towards the Church’s holistic programme and taken distance from the necessarily narrower approach of public policy, the Holy Father now critiques the further reduction of public policy to a single means and method: ‘…the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it.’

In Europe and North America, where condoms are culturally accepted by many, people ask incredulously, ‘Why on earth does the Church oppose their promotion?’ Some with muddled thinking have even accused Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI of presiding over an AIDS genocide.

*    *    *

Springing up out of Catholic faith and tradition, the Pope’s whole and indeed holistic message is for the people he is visiting. It connects thoroughly with the human reality on the ground. A Congolese Jesuit wrote to me, ‘Over here we are following the visit of the Pope with great interest, as well as the speculation in the press about the question of condoms arising from the Holy Father’s wise statement before touching down in Africa. What a shame that so far people don’t realise that the solution to AIDS won’t come with distribution of these things, but by handling the whole question as a whole.’

The Holy Father concludes by answering again the journalist’s allegation of ‘unrealistic and ineffective?’: ‘It seems to me that this is the proper response, and the Church does this, thereby offering an enormous and important contribution. We thank all who do so.’

According to my experience, most Africans, Catholic or not, agree. To them, what the Holy Father said is profound and true. He is reiterating what they have been experiencing for years and what they continue to expect. They too thank those who implement the Church’s strategy.

HT:  Maria Ruiz Scaperlanda

"You have a marvelous virgin!"

Do you think it's time for the State Department to spend a little more time briefing top officials?  The Catholic News Agency reports this exchange between our Secretary of State and the Rector of the Basilica of Our Lady of Gaudalupe during Clinton's recent visit to Mexico:

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

The Virgin quote was Mrs. Clinton's remark to Mexicans gathered to greet her as she left.

Speculating about Lazarus

Today's gospel reading, John's account in Chapter 11 of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, is one of my favorites.  In one of his books (Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus through the Gospel of John), Jean Vanier speculates that Lazarus was perhaps mentally retarded.  Why else would a grown man in those days be living with his two grown sisters?  Might that explain the special love that Jesus clearly had for Lazarus and his two sisters, Mary and Martha? 

I also love that reading because it continues the story of Jesus' fascinating relationship with Mary and Martha.  This story always seems to me a sort of vindication of busy-bee Martha.  Remember, this is the same Martha who was rebuked by Jesus for spending too much time with the housework, and not enough time just listening to his words, like her sister Mary.  In this story, Martha is bustling around as usual, going out to meet Jesus on the road when she hears he's on his way, while Mary stays home, weeping.  When Martha finds Jesus, she rebukes him for dawdling, telling him he's too late.  In response, we get what John Paul Paul II in Mulieris Dignitatem called one of the most important exchanges in the Gospel.  It is to Martha that Jesus utters these words "I am the resurrection and the life: whoever believes in me, though he should die, will come to life; and whoever is alive and believes in me will never die."  And it is busy-bee Martha who is the first person who the Gospels have saying something like this: "I have come to believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God: he who is to come into the world."

Saturday, March 28, 2009

"Deadlier Sin of the Male"

Tina Beattie’s March 7, 2009 article in The Tablet (subscription required) makes the following observation:

Among the leading bankers that have brought the British economy to its knees there are no women.  Could it be that the tendency to the sin of greed – as highlighted recently by the Pope – is primarily a male trait?

In a recent article in L’Osservatore Romano, the Pope’s personal theologian, Mgr. Wojciech Giertych, endorsed a theory by  a 95-year-old Jesuit, Fr. Roberto Busa, that men and women sin differently. … [This is not new] since feminist theologians have been writing about the gendering of sin for nearly 50 years.

Any reaction?