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.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

A personal reflection on "A more perfect human"

One of my students, Jason McCart, provides a very personal reflection on two of my earlier posts:

After having had a conversation with a person this weekend, I felt compelled to respond to Michael Scaperlanda's posts "A more perfect Human" and "The Worship of Retardation."  My 7 month old daughter is presently an in-patient in Denver Children's Hospital and has been for about 6 weeks.  Last Thursday night she received the liver transplant we had been waiting for since she was born.  Our daughter is our first child, and my wife and I were overjoyed when she was born.  The range of emotions, circumstances, and stresses were unimaginable, nearly intolerable.  But, as of last Thursday, we made it.  Our daughter was pretty ill by the time she received a liver transplant, but the transformation in her since then is nothing short of miraculous.  She's like a different child, a "normal" child.  For the second time in our daughter's life, we are overcome with joy.

But there are other families in the same hospital that haven't been so lucky.  Their children may need to have multiple organs transplanted, or they just can't stay healthy enough for long enough to actually receive a transplant.  My heart hurts for those families and those children.  They are hanging on, day to day, hoping for their miracle, knowing it may not come.  They know that it's possible their little one may not be long for this world.  I've been there.

One of these is a single mother whose 2 year old son is waiting on a liver transplant.  But this child is very ill.  Every time they think they may have an organ, something always seems to be in the way.  He has a fever, or his white cell count is too high, or he's lost too much weight that week, and so on.  She is really struggling.  She's alone with her son, as near as I can tell, and we look in on her daily.  She was so happy for us when our daughter was transplanted, genuinely happy, and yet her son needs the same thing and can't seem to get it.  He's been waiting much longer, too.

One day, this woman had some visitors.  I was pleased to see that someone had come to see her.  They brought flowers, toys for the little one, and a basket filled with food.  I stopped by to introduce myself and tell them what we shared.  As the conversation turned serious, the women in the room asked for a rundown of the little boy's condition.  "Well," the mother explained, "he is getting to the point he really needs a liver.  His condition will improve, then worsen, and then improve again for a while . . . but it's like one step forward and two steps back."  "What will happen if he doesn't get a liver?"  "Well, you can't live without your liver, so eventually he would die." 

Next was the moment that brought me back to Michael Scaperlanda's posts.  The visitor looked this mother in the eye and asked "Well, don't you think that maybe that would be for the best?"

It's hard to describe my physiological reaction to that question.  My hands started to sweat.  My stomach was queasy, and my eyes lost focus.  Even if you, for some perverse reason, actually believe that it might be for "for the best," why would you ever put that thought into this mother's head?   Some of the others tried to change the subject quickly, but the damage was done.  The mother turned to her little boy and started stroking his head.  I knew exactly what she was feeling – that she might lose him, and no one would care.  You see, for that particular visitor, that little boy's life was imperfect, and therefore not as valuable.  I'll bet she would never have asked the same question of a mother whose child was "healthy."

I caught up to the visitor, a middle age woman, later that night in an area on the floor resembling a lounge.  We exchanged greetings, and she told me that she was happy my daughter was doing better.  I thanked her.  She asked me if I thought she had hurt her friend's feelings earlier.  I told her that "yes, I think you put an idea in her head that scared the hell out of her."  I asked her if she knew what she was asking, and we talked about the implications of her idea, and I could tell it was easy to change her mind.  I think that she just hadn't thought through what she was saying, but in the future I'm confident she will.  Still I thought it was remarkable, and very telling, that such an idea would even crop up in that place and under those circumstances. 

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Common-Sense Antitode to Intellectual Elite Hubris in Politics

When I began exploring the Catholic Church more than a decade ago and was moving toward Rome as my spiritual home, one of the things that emerged as a small but persistent obstacle for me was the Church’s canonization of people whose behavior was, well, downright weird. I looked with discomfort, even dismay, at the veneration of a man who had lived on top of a pillar for decades, or a woman who had lived as a desert hermit in extreme ascetism, or a man who had whipped his back raw to ward off the sins of the flesh. How could these strange actions be seen as useful examples to the faithful, as instructive stories of great men and women held up as saints of the Church? The monsignor who led me into the Church well explained these behaviors to me as emphatic rejections of the corrupt and unbalanced societies in which they lived. Almost ironically, their prominent and startling behavior served as prophetic calls, not to the extreme, but toward healthy balance. When society has departed from the path to the good life or culture has become perverted, men and women who exemplify the opposite can be an essential antidote.

We live in a time in which far too many among the elites in academia, the legal profession, media, the entertainment industry, and government have abandoned the fundamental values upon which a healthy society is founded and have elevated themselves as superior not only in learning but in character to ordinary Americans. Rather than serving the people and being grounded in society, a detached form of intellectualism has emerged, disconnected from the real world of communities bound by shared moral values, economic markets, and neighborhood life. As we have seen during this campaign year, some of these elites look with disdain at ordinary working people, especially those who live outside of urban centers, as the unwashed and “bitter” masses who “cling to their guns and religion.” Those who are not centered in the professional enclaves of the Left or Right Coast are ridiculed as the unfortunate and ignorant denizens of “fly-over country.” Highly-educated academics and lawyers employ intellectual rationalization to justify the killing of unborn children and to embrace the Culture of Death as a constitutional good. Sexual experimentation by teenagers is downplayed by our social superiors as harmless fun (if undertaken with a condom of course) and, in any event, inevitable, while any attempt to promote sexual responsibility or suggest moral implications is demeaned as unrealistic and prudish. The experts in our colleges of education and the bosses in the teacher’s unions see the public schools as the laboratory for political consciousness-raising, while sneering at those who promote teaching the fundamentals.

Never having built anything, created anything, or grown anything, many of the elites in this intellectual class devote their entire careers to pursuing political or academic influence and prominence, not to advance principles of lasting importance but primarily to advance themselves. Being quoted in the New York Times or publishing a book with a university press is the coin of the realm. The things of the mind that are lasting and that are grounded in the higher things are impatiently pushed aside. Due to their supposed intellectual and cultural superiority, many intellectual elites regard themselves as holding an entitlement to govern, to use the power of government to remold society in their own graduate-school image, to capture the resources of society through taxes to be redistributed according to expert prescriptions for the Great Society, and to impose regulations so that everyone marches to the beat of their college-educated drums.

In such times as these, what a breath of fresh air it is to see a Hockey Mom from Alaska who has not spent her lifetime in political social climbing, who did not devote her youth to writing her memoirs and giving speeches, who knows what it means to run a business and to live day-to-day on the fruits of the family’s labor, who has volunteered for the parent-teacher association, and who has devoted her time in public service to the practical concerns of citizens on such matters as zoning rules, public services, energy production, tax reduction, etc. Although it only appears extreme by comparison with the hot-house intellectualism and government-centric expertise of the chattering class, Sarah Palin’s simple common-sense and uncomplicated approach to political matters is an antidote to those who would impose the tyranny of the expert. She stands as a reminder that the vital strength and moral foundation of America does not lie on Wall Street or in Hollywood or in Washington, D.C. –- or even in the college towns that dot the country (as much as we in higher education do add to our society). Instead, the Salt of the Earth kind of folk who have always made the sacrifices, worked the jobs, fought the wars, and lived the lives that keep this country going are still to be found in cities and towns, large and small, where you will see them at the neighborhood picnic, the school board meeting, the soccer game, and the church coffee hour. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, bless their hearts!

Greg Sisk

Rob, Regensburg, and Obama

Rob Vischer rightly objects to the pietist-voluntarist rejection of public reason that he finds among some evangelicals. He turns instead to Catholicism for its more frequent union of faith and reason and consequent openness to the non-believing world. I take it that fidelity to Logos as Reason was a main point of Pope Benedict's 2006 Regensburg address.

But another main point of Regensburg was surely to decry the narrowing of reason in the Enlightenment and its post-modern near-obliteration. We ought not to forget this. While we should not retreat into a pietistic ghetto, neither should we fool ourselves into thinking that we live in a fair-minded community of reason. People (like Blackmun in Roe, 1973) who claim not to know whether a child in the womb just before birth is actually (rather than only potentially) a living human being have abandoned fact and logic. Likewise, people who openly support the "brutal", "gruesome", "cruel", and "painful" dismemberment of infants (to use the words of Stevens and Ginsburg in Stenberg, 2000), and mock those who oppose this practice, have abandoned the natural foundations of reason. This, I take it, is why Pope John Paul II spoke so often of the "Culture of Death". We who still seek to live in the "Culture of Life" have not wished this polarization, have not wished to face an enemy at the gates. But he is there all the same. We have no choice but to oppose him.

I do regretfully identify Barack Obama as a leader of the Culture of Death. Please convince me I'm wrong. But first read this desvastating and, as far as i can tell, wholly accurate expose recently posted on NRO:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGM5YzIzYTExNjIyZmExODY0MzQyZDUxNmRmNmU1NmM=

Response to Rob

You know, although I find much to admire in and like about Sarah Palin (I grew up in Alaska), I agree with almost everything Rob says in his "Problem with Palin" post, except for (what I take to be) his premise that the "willing to engage the world, subordinate ideological formulae to actual experience, capable of revising views in light of facts, not prone to demonize those who disagree, yet clear-eyed about the importance of fundamental moral norms" criterion, when applied to the political choice facing us next month, cuts in favor of voting for an Obama administration rather than a McCain administration.  As I see it (and, to be sure, there's probably no point in elaborating -- at this point, we all think what we all think), misplaced populism, uncritical sloganeering, hostility toward questions directed at factual predicates, and ugly hostility toward those who come to different judgments about policy vehicles are (at least) at present, bigger problems on the political left than on the political right (which is not to say that anyone is innocent).  Oh well.  St. Thomas More, pray for us.

My problem with Palin

I consider myself to be a pro-life feminist, but I have a confession: I am not a fan of Sarah Palin.  She might be a wonderful woman with a powerful life story, but her candidacy embodies a sort of anti-intellectual populism that is deeply troubling to me.  I probably would not have voted for McCain in any event, but his selection of Palin solidified my opposition.  Let me try to explain without resorting to the anti-Palin hysteria I see from the professional pundits.

I was drawn to the Catholic Church, in part, because the Church does not fear the world.  Growing up in evangelical churches, I often had the sense that Christians were supposed to hunker down, circle the wagons, and ride things out until the Second Coming.  Science, secular universities, and even the arts were to be viewed warily as potential threats to one's faith and to a God-centered culture.  (As my brother says, "If evangelicals believe that God will protect our kids in the most dangerous third world mission fields, why do we doubt that God can protect our kids at Harvard?")  I always had the sense that we were playing defense, and not the sort of aggressive defense that seeks to win, but the sort of defense that consists of covering your head and bracing for impact.  The Catholic Church, by contrast, was so secure in the Truth of God's sovereignty that it stood ready to engage the world on the merits.  Seek and celebrate knowledge. 

When I listen to Sarah Palin and witness the rapturous embrace she has received from the GOP base, I'm taken back to my evangelical upbringing.  It is as though she revels in her lack of knowledge, wearing it as a badge that says "I'm one of you, not one of them."  It doesn't even matter, in the end, whether humans lived with dinosaurs, whether global warming is caused by humans, whether she knows any Supreme Court rulings, et cetera.  The point, for many of her followers, is that she does not allow factual inquiry to trump worldview.  Indeed, a major component of the operative worldview is to be extremely wary of factual inquiry.  Nuance is not welcomed -- e.g., when the presidential candidates were asked about evil, Obama was heavily criticized for giving a long answer that includes the need for self-critical reflection, while McCain was celebrated for a two-word response: "Defeat it."  In a changing and uncertain world, our reflexive defense is epistemic certainty, no matter the facts.  It was that way in my church growing up, and it's that way in much of our political discourse now.

This is not a liberal-conservative problem, though the two most obvious recent embodiments of this have been leading figures in the GOP (Palin and George W. Bush).  Conservative figures such as Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich, to offer two counterexamples, do not fear factual inquiry and ideas.  They welcome intellectual debates and knowledge.  I may disagree with many of their ideas, but I affirm their willingness to join the debate.

A more sinister ramification of a disdain for factual inquiry is that it lends itself to dehumanizing those who do not share our worldview.  Intellectual engagement and an openness to new ideas is one key way in which we build bridges to "the other."  When our worldview is a closed set, it becomes easier to marginalize.  We can see some hints of this now in the campaign, with Palin, for example, using "East Coast" as a pejorative and saying that Obama "is not a man who sees America the way you see America and the way I see America."  (This is not just a conservative problem, of course, as a competing worldview that has closed itself to intellectual engagement would not even recognize Trig Palin's humanity.)

So when Palin ignores the debate moderator's questions and instead speaks "straight to the American people" with a combination of winks, shout-outs to "Joe Six Pack," inartful colloquialisms, and empty slogans, should it trouble us, as Catholics called to engage this world?  You betcha.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Perry to San Diego

Big news from the University of San Diego:

Michael Perry, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on international human rights law and theory, has been appointed to a three-year term at the University of San Diego as University Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law and Peace Studies. Perry is the first faculty member to have a joint appointment in the law and peace schools at USD.

It will be great to have our own Michael P. teaching at a Catholic law school.  (HT:  Leiter).

"Proportionate reason" debate at Notre Dame

This event might be of interest to South Bend-area readers:

Title: “Catholic Voters and the 2008 Presidential Election”

In particular, we have asked the participants to address the question:  “For an otherwise pro-life voter, what constitutes a sufficient 'proportionate' reason to justify a vote for a pro-abortion candidate?”

Participants:

Gerard Bradley, Notre Dame Professor of Law & member of the Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee

Vincent Rougeau, Notre Dame Associate Professor of Law & member of the steering committee for Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council

Moderator: John T. McGreevy, Dean of the College of Arts & Letters

Date: Wednesday, October 8th

Time: 6:30pm (reception to follow)

Place: McKenna Hall Auditorium

Sponsored by the Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture, and funded by the Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Who Says Catholics Don't Read the Bible?

Benedict XVI Launches Bible-Reading Marathon

Calls It "Fitting Accompaniment" to Scripture Synod

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 5, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI kicked off a Bible-reading marathon on Italian television, which he called a "fitting accompaniment" to the world Synod of Bishops on the Word of God.

The Pope read from Genesis on "Bibbia Giorno e Notte" (Bible Day and Night), a program broadcast by RAI where the Bible will be read from beginning to end in various languages by nearly 1,200 readers.

The Pontiff's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, will conclude the marathon Saturday, reading the last chapter of Revelation.

Readers will include, among others, participants in the 12th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church," which the Holy Father inaugurated today. The synod will end Oct. 26.

The site of the reading will be the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusaleme in Rome. Organizers received 180,000 requests to participate in the event.

Benedict XVI spoke about the event after reciting the Angelus with thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square in the Vatican today. He said, “This event is a fitting accompaniment to the Synod of Bishops on the Word of God.

“The Word of God can thus enter into homes to accompany the lives of families and single persons: a seed that, if properly welcomed, will not fail to bear abundant fruit."

Report on DC's Mulieris Dignitatem Conference

The two days of the "Conference Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of Mulieris Dignitatem:  On the Dignity and Vocation of Women," proved to be one of the most powerful demonstrations I've ever seen about the importance of Catholic law schools, the power of Catholic legal thought, and the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation.  The conference was a joint effort of two Catholic law schools -- Ave Maria School of Law and The Catholic Unversity of America's Columbus School of Law.  The two organizers were Jane Adolphe of Ave Maria, and Helen Alvere, formerly at Catholic, now at George Mason Law School.  Jane and Helen did an absolutely magnificant job of pulling together an international, indisciplinary gathering of scholars exploring the theological, philosophical, moral, AND legal dimensions of Pope John Paul II's challenge to apply the "dignity and vocation of women" to today's pressing social problems.

The presentations were all of exceptionally high quality, and the ways in which the different disciplines represented at the conference reinforced each other and illuminated different aspects of the topics addressed was extraordinary.  It's truly impossible me to even identify "highlights", because of the uniformly high quality of the presentations.  Among the legal scholars applying Catholic thought on women and men, filtered through the insights and challenges of Mulieris Dignitatem, were Helen Alvare (George Mason), Katherine Spaht (Louisiana State Law Center), Howard Bromberg (University of Michigan), and Fr. John Coughlin (Notre Dame) all dealing with different aspects of family law;  Gerald Bradley (Notre Dame) discussing the concept of equality under Constitutional jurisprudence; me (with some general reflections on what Mary's role in the Incarnation and the founding of the Church reveals about the specific vocation of women in the law), Mary Leary (Catholic Law School) talking about the regulation of pornography and the dignity of the soul, Fr. Joseph Isanga (Ave Maria) addressing domestic violence, and Jane Adolphe (Ave Maria) on Amnesty International's abortion policies. 

For a broader perspective, we heard Keynote Addresses from Maguerite Peeters, Director of the Institute for Intercultural Dialogue Dynamics, providing a sobering view of the international dimension of the situation of women, and Monsignor Grzegorz Kaszak, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family, with the view from the Vatican.   We also heard from economists (Maria Sophia Aguirre, Catholic U.), sociologists (W. Bradford Wilcox, U of Virginia), philosophers (including one of my personal heroines, Sr. Prudence Allen), and theologians.  Unfortunately, I had to leave before the very end, to catch my plane, so I had to miss how Helen Alvare and Teresa Collett (UST) were going to give us all our marching orders on future scholarship and other plans of action.....

I've never participated in a conference before where I have so urgently wanted to see all of the finished papers.  They'll be published in Ave Maria Law Review.  This is going to be a truly ground breaking collection of articles.  Such scholarship simply would not exist if we didn't have Catholic law schools with the commitment to putting on conferences like this, Catholic scholars willing to dedicate the time and effort to applying their faith to their scholarship, and energetic and capable people like Jane Adolphe and Helen Alvare with the vision and energy to bring them all together! 

CST, regulation, and the two parties

Mark Stricherz's post, here, connects well with the various recent MOJ posts on the credit crisis, the economy generally, and CST.