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, February 2, 2009

Abortion analogies and credibility

On the topic of the language we use to describe legalized abortion (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) a reader writes:

In my opinion, there is a Gresham's law of language in which the attempt to inappropriately exploit the connotative power of a word has the opposite effect of diluting its ability to convey any meaning at all.  What's more, since most people do not believe that the intentional killing of a 12 year old child and the act of abortion are morally equivalent, the unintended result is not only to debase the word, but to reduce the speaker's credibility as well -- just as we would look down on someone trying to pass off counterfeit goods.

UPDATE: Another reader responds:

It may be the case that calling abortion a "holocaust" or some other similar term reduces a pro-life advocate's effectiveness, but that does not mean that such a term does not reflect reality.  Take an example: holding up large pictures of aborted children may churn some onlookers stomach's and cause them to disengage from the issue rather than confront it.  But the reality of in what abortion results is no less accurate.  Reality is not defined by the reaction people have to those who speak facts.  I think we should be clear on just what we are debating.  Is it "These terms don't help" vs "Yes they do" or the much different debate of "These terms do not reflect reality" vs. "Yes they do"?
Can we so easily separate reality from effectiveness, though?  After all, when we're talking about analogies, we're not talking about literal reality.  Legalized abortion is not the Holocaust.  If we want to call it the Holocaust, isn't that decision motivated, in significant part, by our perception of persuasive similarities?
 

MoJ and Prawfs worlds colliding . . .

For those interested, I'll be helping Rick wave the MoJ flag by spending the month of February at the always entertaining (at least until I showed up) PrawfsBlawg.

Doe v. California Lutheran High School Assn

Rick's post about Doe v. California Lutheran notes that the case is an important religious freedom decision. It is important to note that the decision protects religious freedom indirectly. The California court of appeals concluded that a Lutheran school was not subject to California's anti-discrimination law because the school wasn't a business. The court's holding was based on statutory grounds and it appears that the school did not even raise the argument that the state law would violate its religious freedom if the state law were interpreted to apply to the school and to prohibit the school from taking the disciplinary action in question. The court noted that the school did not raise a religious freedom argument because recent California Supreme Court decisions would not have supported the argument for a constitutionally compelled exemption.

Interpreting the statute not to cover the religious school does protect the school's freedom to act, but the decision makes it clear that this is not a matter of constitutional law but as a matter of legislative grace.

Richard M.

School Choice Indiana

I was delighted to find, in my parish bulletin on Sunday, a letter from my pastor on school choice, and a flier from this organization, School Choice Indiana (co-sponsored by the Indiana Catholic bishops).  It would be great if programs that increase the ability of parents to choose Catholic schools -- not just vouchers, but tax-credits, private scholarship programs, etc. -- could become the focus of bipartisan, "Seamless Garment Party" support.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Unionizing Catholic schools

This story, out of Scranton, raises tricky questions.

More than 200 supporters, many from regional union locals, joined a noon rally outside Diocese of Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino’s residence to mark the one-year anniversary of the fight to unionize local Catholic school teachers. Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers President Michael Milz handed out green and black arm bands.

“Black is the color of mourning, and without a doubt we are here for that sorrowful purpose,” Milz said, repeating the claim that Martino rejected more than a century of Catholic Church support for organized labor when he rejected the request to unionize.

Yes, the Catholic Social Teaching tradition "support[s] organized labor."  It does not follow, though, that a Catholic bishop should support the unionization of teachers in the Catholic schools of his diocese.  (Obviously, he should do all he can -- and all Catholics in the diocese should support him, financially, in this effort -- to pay hard-working Catholic teachers a good, just wage.  But unionization comes with more supervision and intrusion by the secular authorities; the Bishop could, quite reasonably, not want to be put in a position of submitting questions about teachers' hiring, firing, promotion, etc., in the hands of others.

An important religious-freedom decision . . .

. . . with a somewhat clunky title:

A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.

"The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.

As with the Boy Scouts, she said, the primary function of the school is to instill its values in young people, who are told of its policies when they enroll.

Kirk Hanson, a lawyer for the two girls, said he was disappointed and would talk to them about a possible appeal to the state Supreme Court.

According to the court, he said, "if you're a religious school, you can discriminate on any basis you want."

He also noted that all children must attend school, either public or private, and said schools serve different purposes from a voluntary organization like the Boy Scouts.

John McKay, a lawyer for California Lutheran, said he was pleased the court recognized that "a religious school is not a business, and the purpose of a religious school is to teach Christian values."

Any state law that required the school to admit gays or lesbians would violate the school's freedom of expression and religion, McKay said.

Turley's anti-Obama screed

Well, this is strange.  Jonathan Turley's recent USA Today screed puts me in the position of feeling compelled to defend President Obama from a deeply misguided attack.  The "argument" is muddled, but familiar:  Rick Warren is a pastor who thinks that his (bigoted, narrow, etc.) religious views have public-policy relevance, Pres. Obama invited Warren to pray at the inauguration, and so we should have "doubts" about Obama's commitment to the "principle of separation of church and state."  Yawn.  (A possible upside:  If the silly "theocracy!" charge starts being levelled at Pres. Obama, maybe that will be the end of the charge.)

Turley writes, regarding the faith-based initiative, "[many people assumed that any Democrat would restore the secular work of government and strive to remove religion from politics."  Hmm.  How, exactly, did these people think that "religion" would, or could, be "remove[d] from politics"?

As I have said before, I worry that Pres. Obama's version of the faith-based initiative will not include the important protections that the Bush Administration's version provided for faith-based hiring.  But, Turley's effort to swirl together his rancor toward Warren, his still-lingering Bush-loathing, and Pres. Obama's own openness to religion in public life misfires badly.

Cardinal Mahoney and honest-services wire fraud (!!)

Putting aside the serious and interesting church-autonomy questions, this use of the wire-fraud statute strikes me (and, I gather from the news, many others) as big-time prosecutorial grandstanding and overreaching.

Abortion and racial equality

The question many have been discussing -- i.e., to what other wrong ought we to compare abortion? -- is an interesting and difficult one.  Putting aside, for now, the question whether abortion is "like" slavery, it does seem clear (to me) that our current abortion regime operates in a way (as, I suspect, Margaret Sanger et al. hoped it would) that reflects, and contributes to, racial inequality and injustice.  Over at the "Moral Accountability" blog, Micah Watson has this essay, which contains some deeply disturbing information.  "The latest data," he writes, "portray a stunning picture of gross racial inequality when it comes to the lives taken through abortions."  Read the whole thing.

   

Saturday, January 31, 2009

The Nomenclature of Atrocities and Catholic Legal Theory

 

 

 

Over the last several days a number of MOJ contributors have offered some significant reflections on the use of language regarding atrocities that punctuate human history in this country and around the world. For their contributions and most helpful insights, I will remain grateful. I appreciate, moreover, the analogies that exist in the moral concerns and the outrage as well as the principles of Catholic teachings that apply to the Holocaust, slavery, abortion, genocide, and other atrocities that demand our attention and response so that these events will never happen again.

 

It is relevant and important for our discussion, debate, and deliberation to keep in mind what makes these atrocities similar and what makes them different if we are to learn from them so that they are never repeated and so that the word atrocity may become a word infrequently used to explain what has happened in present days and the future.

 

The Holocaust was a particular genocide against the Jewish people that National Socialism had devised to eliminate the Jews from the face of the earth. That was a singular event that has parallels with other plans for mass extermination but was directed to a particular people. We can properly recall the similarities, but we must not forget the differences.

 

National Socialism also targeted others in its design for mass extermination, especially the Poles. We do not have a name for this other genocide. It, too, was horrendous, and the numbers of human lives sacrificed was also enormous. But, the reasons for this hideous event were not the same as the dehumanizing events and policies that consumed the Jewish people. Each has parallels with the other, but each is also very different.

 

The targeting of another people for destruction, the Armenians, is another dark chapter of human history. The taking of life of enormous numbers of this people, the Armenians, has parallels with the two previous genocides I have mentioned, but this was also a different aspect of our dark human history that possesses its distinctions.

 

The existence of slavery, while not necessarily a destruction of human life, was an extraordinary dehumanization of peoples based on race or ethnicity. In our country of the United States, it has taken a toll hundreds of thousands of African Americans. While it has sometimes be given a name—our Peculiar Institution—it has parallels with the dehumanizations that I have already mentioned, but we must not forget the great differences of slavery from what happened to the Jews, the Poles, and the Armenians.

 

There are other unfortunate and inexcusable episodes of the dark side of human history that I could add to my catalog, such as the mass exterminations under Stalinism. Each of these additional tragic, unnecessary, and gravely wrong episodes has parallels with those I have mentioned, but each retains differences that must not be forgotten.

 

And then we come to abortion. This relatively new “peculiar institution” has a certain parallel with those I have already mentioned, i.e., the massive extinguishing of human life, but it also has extraordinary differences. In spite of analogies that we may properly draw, it must not be confused with the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the destruction of the Poles, the annihilation policies of Josef Stalin, the dehumanization of slavery, etc. And these differences we must not forget. And what distinguishes abortion from these other atrocities? I shall mention two here. The first is that the death count attributable to abortion is approaching fifty million human lives since this national “peculiar institution” of abortion was recognized and institutionalized in 1973. The second is that this atrocity is still taking place, thereby increasing the number of its victims. What name should we give it? Something that “reduces costs”? A woman’s “right”? A “human right”?

 

No, these names do not work, nor are they appropriate. Moreover, it is not the Holocaust, notwithstanding the parallels. It is not the Armenian genocide, despite the parallels. It is not what happened in Rwanda or Yugoslavia, despite the parallels. It is not what happened in Stalin’s death camps, despite the parallels. Regarding abortion, it is not the name that is important. What is important is that while we seemed to have learned the lessons of these other tragic episodes that I have mentioned and arrested them, the institution of abortion is still on course and increasing multifold the number of its innocent victims, regardless of the analogies it possesses with those circumstances that human civilization has correctly and resoundingly condemned and arrested.

 

 

RJA sj