I knew that the whole tattoo craze had really gone mainstream this summer when my 18 year-old niece was taken to get a Christian-themed tattoo on her back by her staunchly Republican grandmother. R.R. Reno has a particularly thoughtful reflection on what our deepening love for tattoos says about human nature, the conformity of individualism, and the striving for permanence.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Human nature and the tattoo culture
Monday, September 1, 2008
Response to Tom
Tom's response to Greg and me is, as one would expect, entirely reasonable, fair, and thoughtful. I understand the desire of those "who think that Republicans have a very bad recent record on many other important issues" to "want there to be a payoff in real abortion reduction from electing someone who would continue a number of those other policies." Because I think that, notwithstanding the blemishes on the Republicans' record, the Democrats have, in my lifetime, a more-bad record on many issues that I care about, I realize that I am not facing exactly the same choice as Tom is.
To be clear: I am under no illusion that the election of John McCain, or even the reversal of Roe v. Wade, would end or dramatically reduce the number of abortions. I *do* believe that a world in which legislatures have the option of regulating abortions more closely and of not funding them is more likely to have fewer abortions than the one that is coming if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed (even if the latter world includes the social-welfare programs Tom supports). But, I'm willing to assume it's a wash.
For me, as I wrote here, it is simply not possible (putting aside my passion for school choice, my worries about threats to religious freedom, my preferences with respect to judicial nominees, etc.) to vote for an administration -- even one headed by a charismatic and occasionally inspiring man like Sen. Obama -- that is so beholden to the premise that the intentional destruction of an unborn child (for any reason, at any time) is, ultimately, one that, as a matter of morality, *must* rest entirely with the person contemplating bringing about that destruction (and to aggressively combatting the expression of those who believe otherwise).
I'm not saying that decent, faithful, Catholic people cannot find their way to doing what is not possible for me to do. (Sure, these people are mistaken, but we all make mistakes.) But, as I wrote here:
The problem with Roe . . . is not just that because it facilitates wrong choices by private persons; it is also, and fundamentally, at odds with our constitutional structure and with democratic self-government. As long as Roe is the law, We the People are not allowed to write into law the conviction — assuming that it is or becomes our conviction — that the unborn child ought to be protected from lethal private violence. The debate is cut off; the conversation is silenced; the "dialogue" that is so often celebrated by the same people who are enthusiastic about Sen. Obama is distorted.
What is at stake in the abortion debate — and, as someone who has known and admired Doug Kmiec for years, I am sorry that he seems to be forgetting this — is not only reducing the number of abortions and helping women considering abortion to find their way to a different choice (though, of course, such reductions and help are important, and one wishes that Democrats for Life had more influence); it as about repairing the damage done to our political community, and to our constitutional order, by a decision that declared that the Constitution itself disables citizens from protecting in law the most vulnerable among us.
In my view, whatever the advantages of an Obama administration as compared to a McCain one (and I'll assume, for present purposes, that there would be some), they are, for me, just not enough. One can be wrong about a lot, but one needs to be right about this. The pedagogical and symbolic effect of the Roe / Casey constitutionalization of a gravely misguided morality, and moral anthropology, is, I think, more to be regretted than the effects of any current policies that one can reasonably expect to be revised significantly by an Obama administration. Or, so it seems to me.
Thoughts on Abortion and Abortion Reduction, in Response to Rick and Greg
Rick is right, in his post on the policies of the two tickets concerning abortion and abortion reduction, to bring up the Freedom of Choice Act and Medicaid funding of abortions and the effects their enactment would have in raising the number of abortions. These measures were in fact evaluated by the authors of the recently released study sponsored by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. The authors concluded that Medicaid funding would increase the abortion rate and numbers, but not by as much as a generous rise in AFDC-TANF and WIC payments to needy families would decrease the rate/numbers. (See Tables 1 and 2, pp. 12 and 16 respectively of the PDF.) They also concluded that the passage of "informed consent" provisions, which the Freedom of Choice Act would likely forbid, does not have as much of a reduction effect as the AFDC and WIC increases would. I cannot vouch for their methodology; in particular, after reading their report I'm quite puzzled by how they treated the effects of informed-consent statutes passed and enforced. See their statistics, Table 2 at p. 16 of the PDF, and their narrative discussion at p. 9 of the PDF. As best I can tell, they acknowledge that an informed-consent provision does reduce abortion rates significantly if it's not invalidated by a state court: that is, if it doesn't suffer the same fate that the Freedom of Choice Act would likely deal it. Even from this study's figures, so far as I can see, the Freedom of Choice Act by invalidating abortion regulations would be a big step backward, as Rick points out (I'm not certain it would be enacted but it's obviously much more likely if Obama is president). Maybe someone can help me understand the study better on this point.
At the same time, the study clearly supports the claim that increases in social-welfare spending targeted at low- to modest-income families do have a significant effect in reducing abortions -- an effect great enough, the study says, to outweigh the effects of Medicaid funding. Given this, it remains a significant problem for me that Republicans are the ones most likely to block what Rick calls "sensible social-welfare programs that result in fewer abortions." (Current information says that 30 of the 41 co-sponsors of the Pregnant Women Support Act in the House and Senate are Democrats.) While I admire much of John McCain's pro-life stance, I remain concerned that his blanket pledges to restrict government spending will block measures that will have a positive practical effect. Would he veto them if a Democratic Congress passed them? I don't know.
I also think it's regrettable that the subcommittee drafting the Republican platform on abortion unanimously removed a sentence saying, "We invite all persons of good will, whether across the political aisle or within our party, to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion" (see p. 46 of this PDF). With all the hubbub given to the Democrats dropping "safe, legal, and rare" from their platform, the dropping of this language should also receive criticism. It's true, and commendable, that the final platform still endorses several ways of supporting women facing unplanned pregnancies, including crisis pregnancy centers and adoption assistance. It seems clear to me, however, that the final language is calculated to leave out any support for social-welfare spending of the kind that the recent study says is particularly effective. I still find prevalent in the GOP an opposition to social-welfare measures that is driven less by empirical evidence than by ideological commitments, cutting taxes and spending, that somehow seem to prevail no matter how loudly the Party calls abortion a great social injustice.
Let me be clear: I am not claiming that this makes the Democratic position on abortion equivalent to the Republican. I agree that the Democratic position is greatly to be regretted for its symbolic statements about the unborn, for its defense of the constitutional mistake of Roe, for its greater likely threats to religious liberty, and for those measures it supports that would increase the abortion numbers. However, on the net numerical effects -- on what positive, morally worthy actions will reduce the number of abortions -- I do not give the Republicans a clear nod. And although statements of principle and effects on the constitutional structure matter, as Rick says, nevertheless those of us who think that Republicans have a very bad recent record on many other important issues -- conducting foreign policy, responding to climate and other environmental challenges, managing government with integrity, etc. -- tend to want there to be a payoff in real abortion reduction from electing someone who would continue a number of those other policies. But McCain has said he'll change some of them, and maybe he will? These are the kinds of questions I'm asking in deciding my vote this year.
For these reasons, I agree with many of Greg's criticisms of Obama, and commendations of Gov. Palin, but cannot accept that this issue is entirely one-sided as he says. Beyond that, I think that our discussions would generally be more productive if we stuck to proposed policies rather than using personal biographies (themselves OK) in a selective way. It is great, of course, that the McCains adopted an orphan. It is also great, is it not, that Obama worked to empower poor people on the South Side of Chicago. Does Greg mean to argue that the first shows greater concern for the needy, including vulnerable children, than the second? It's also plainly a distraction to object that Obama's campaign "sneer[ed] at [Palin's] service as a small-town mayor." We've heard plenty of "sneering" from McCain's campaign about Obama's relatively short time in national politics (or was that legitimate criticism?).
Labor Day
Today the United States celebrates Labor Day, albeit with mixed feelings for many, since the news for large numbers of working Americans, in the words of one editorial I read this morning, remains cloudy. Many working families face increased job insecurity and decreased wages.
There is, nonetheless, value in a day dedicated to workers and to human work. In particular, as I wrote on my blog this morning, it is a good day to focus on the meaning of work from a Catholic perspective. In constrast to the narrow secular vision of work, the Church sees work as "the condition not only for economic development but also for the cultural and moral development of persons, the family, society and the entire human race.” It is through work that we participate with God in His creative activity.
You can read my full reflection on Labor Day and human work here.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
A quick comment on Gov. Palin
Our friends at dotCommonweal are having their own (occasionally heated) conversations about the wisdom and politics of the Gov. Palin pick in the comments boxes to various posts. There are also some posts at the First Things and America blogs; I assume MOJ readers know all about them. Ours is not primarily a politics blog, so I won't dwell on this, but I can't resist . . . I first heard of Sarah Palin back in 1982, when I was an eighth-grade high-school-basketball-wanna-be in Anchorage, Alaska and she was, up the road, leading her Wasilla High School team to the state championship. I'll admit, I'm feeling (a rare feeling, I assure you) exceptionally savvy, having blogged about Gov. Palin's "pro-life witness" last month and having suggested to a few friends, months ago, that she could be the VP pick.
We're (none of us) political consultants here, so I guess we'll have to wait and see whether this pick turns out to be more "risk" than "reward" for Sen. McCain, but I'll confess to being happy, and cautiously optimistic, about it. If nothing else, it could be a "teaching moment" about the dignity of disabled children and the courage and inspiration of their parents.
UPDATE: Well, after a day or so of some pretty gross rumor-mongering, it turns out that . . . Gov. Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant (and keeping the baby). Here's the statement:
We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support."
Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.
I can't resist: This statement compares favorably to "punished with a baby", I think.
Jonathan Watson on punishment theory
MOJ-reader Jonathan Watson has posted a new paper on SSRN. It's called "Punishment Calibration and Empirical Desert", and it's available here. Abstract:
Professor Paul Robinson's major focus for many years has been punishment theory. He (among others - principally John Darley, a social psychologist), has gradually developed a theory of punishment called "empirical desert." Empirical desert is the idea that distributive theories of criminal liability and punishment must be based in the "community's notion of justice" if they are to have community respect, and thereby, effectiveness. Professor Adam Kolber also works in the area of punishment theory. His recent work, The Subjective Experience of Punishment , focuses on the idea that as all humans experience pain and suffering in different ways, punishments ought to be tailored accordingly, usually exemplified therein through variation on punishment locale or length. Examining Prof. Kolber's work through the lens of empirical desrt reveals potential problems which could arise for proponents of punishment theory. This paper discusses the two theories at length, outlines the problems which arise at their intersection, and suggests ways in which they might be reconciled.
Sounds fascinating.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Peter Steinfels interviews Doug Kmiec on Kmiec's support for Obama
New York Times, August 30, 2008
For Ex-G.O.P. Official, Obama Is Candidate of Catholic Values
When Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president last spring, it made waves, especially among Roman Catholics.
A constitutional scholar who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Mr. Kmiec was well known as an articulate opponent of abortion.
He explains his current stance in “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama,” which will be published in two weeks by Overlook Press. But reached this week in Denver, Mr. Kmiec agreed to give necessarily brief replies to questions sent by e-mail.
Q. What is your position on the morality of abortion, and how is it related to your religious faith?
A. I fully accept the teaching of the church that participating in an abortion is an intrinsic evil. My acceptance of abortion as a grave, categorical wrong is one part respectful deference to authoritative Catholic teaching and one part reasoned deduction from our scientific knowledge of genetics and the beginning of an individual life.
Q. Would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?
A. Yes, but not on the terms usually suggested by Republicans. Roe is mistaken constitutional law not just because it invalidated state laws on the subject but because it is contrary to what is described as a self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence, namely, that we have an unalienable right to life from our creator. It may surprise the general citizenry that not a single sitting justice utilizes the declaration as a source of interpretative guidance.
But even employing the jurisprudential methods applied by the modern court, there is no satisfactory showing that abortion as a matter of custom and tradition was properly found to be an implied aspect of the liberties protected by the 14th Amendment.
Q. Given those views, why do you support Barack Obama?
A. There is a widespread misconception that overturning Roe is the only way to be pro-life. In fact, overturning Roe simply returns the matter to the states, which in their individual legislative determinations could then be entirely pro-abortion. I doubt that many of our non-legally-trained pro-life friends fully grasp the limited effect of overturning Roe.
Secondly, pundits like to toss about the notion that the future of Roe depends on one vote, the mythical fifth vote to overturn the decision. There are serious problems with this assumption: first, Republicans have failed to achieve reversal in the five previous times they asked the court for it; and second, it is far from certain that only one additional vote is needed to reverse the decision in light of the principles of stare decisis by which a decided case ought not to be disturbed. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia have written and joined dissenting opinions suggesting the appropriateness of overturning Roe.
So given those views, the better question is how could a Catholic not support Barack Obama?
Senator Obama’s articulated concerns with the payment of a living wage, access to health care, stabilizing the market for shelter, special attention to the needs of the disadvantaged and the importance of community are all part of the church’s social justice mission.
Applying this to the issue of abortion, the senator has repeatedly indicated that he is not pro-abortion, that he understands the serious moral question it presents, and, most significantly, that he wants to move us beyond the 35 years of acrimony that have done next to nothing to reduce the unwanted pregnancies that give rise to abortions.
Q. But all the same, isn’t your support at odds with Catholic teaching?
A. Quite the contrary. Senator Obama is articulating policies that permit faithful Catholics to follow the church’s admonition that we continue to explore ways to give greater protection to human life.
Consider the choices: A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion.
It is, of course, not enough for a Catholic legislator to declare himself or herself pro-choice and just leave it at that, but neither Senator Obama, who is not Catholic except by sensibility, nor Joe Biden, who is a lifelong Catholic, leaves matters in that unreflective way.
In my view, Obama and Biden seek to fulfill the call by Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” to “ensure proper support for families and motherhood.” It cannot possibly contravene Catholic doctrine to improve the respect for life by paying better attention to the social and economic conditions of women which correlate strongly with the number of abortions.
Q. You have been fiercely attacked by some Catholic abortion opponents and in one instance barred from receiving communion. How do you feel about that?
A. To be the subject of an angry homily at Mass last April 18 and excoriated as giving scandal for endorsing Senator Obama and then to be denied communion for that “offense” was the most humiliating experience in my faith life.
To be separated in that public manner from the receipt of the eucharist, and to be effectively shunned or separated from the body of Christ in the sense of that particular congregation, has left, I very much regret to say, a permanent spiritual scar. Thankfully, it has also given me a new appreciation for the significance of the sacrament in my daily worship. And the priest, having been called to order by Cardinal Roger Mahony, sent me an apology, which of course I have accepted.
Nonetheless, I remain deeply troubled that other church leaders not fall into similar traps. That would do untold damage to the church within the context of American democracy.
There are clearly partisan forces that want nothing more than to manufacture or stir up faith-based opposition to their political opponents. The church has been careful to underscore that Catholics have unfettered latitude to vote for any candidate so long as the intent of the Catholic voter is not to express approval of a grave evil.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Catholic Social Thought seminar
The year before last (time flies!), I taught a one-"quarter" class on "Law and the Catholic Social Tradition" at the University of Chicago. (More here.) I really enjoyed it, and learned a lot, so I'm delighted to have the chance to teach the class again, as a seminar, at Notre Dame. The course is, for me, still a work in progress. (My Notre Dame colleague and MOJ-friend Vince Rougeau has, of course, taught the course many times, so I have a good model to follow.)
Our first meeting was on Wednesday, and the idea was to introduce some big-picture themes and questions. We read (a) selections from the Compendium (¶¶ 1-6, 60-104, 160-208), (b) excerpts from Deus caritas est (¶¶ 1, 20-22, 25-29), (c) Fr. John Coleman's essay, Neither Liberal Nor Socialist: The Originality of Catholic Social Teaching, (d) Kevin Lee's chapter, The Foundations of Catholic Legal Theory: A Primer, in Scaperlanda & Collett, eds., Recovering Self-Evident Truths (2007), and (e) Russ Hittinger's essay, Reasons for a Civil Society, in Hittinger, The First Grace (2003).
I had planned, originally, to turn in Week Two to an overview of the relevant (early) historical context (i.e., church-state relations and industrial changes between the French Revolution and Rerum novarum) but, instead, decided to move up material on "religion in the public square," because it seemed that our discussion about the relevance of CST to laws and the legal enterprise turned naturally to the problem of "imposing" religious beliefs in a pluralistic society. So, next time, we'll be reading John McGreevy's chapters on the legal debates about the regulation of contraception and abortion, Robby George and Geoff Stone on "public reason", Greg Kalscheur on "moral limits on morals legislation", and some other things. Should be fun! Thoughts and suggestions welcome!
On Sanctity of Human Life: The National Election Choice Becomes Poignantly Clear
With the candidates for President and Vice President now having been announced for both of the major parties, the clarity — indeed the personal poignancy — of the choice on respect for the sanctity of human life is sharper than ever before in a national race. On what the Catholic Church in American has consistently said is the greatest human rights issue of our time in this nation, the two tickets could not be more different.
Senator John McCain, who will accept the Republican nomination for President next Thursday (barring a hurricane tragedy that postpones the event) has consistently voted to protect unborn human life during his many years in the United States Senate. Beyond his political record, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta presented Cindy McCain with two desperate orphan babies during one of Mrs. McCain’s many trips around the world to work with disadvantaged children, the McCains immediately took one of those children into their own home as their adopted child, also bringing the other baby home to live with another family.
By contrast, Senator Barack Obama, confirmed last night as the Democratic nominee for President, has never used his public authority to protect unborn human life. Quite the opposite. As a state legislator, he turned a cold shoulder when a nurse testified before his committee how she has repeatedly seen aborted children who survived being left to die over many hours in a filthy disposal room. Obama was so committed to unlimited abortion that he could not even bring himself to vote against infanticide, opposing legislation to require medical treatment of infants born alive after abortions and blasting the Supreme Court’s modest decision to allow banning of partial birth abortions. Obama has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices committed to Roe v. Wade, to reverse pro-life regulations, and to use taxpayer money to fund abortions.
Senator Joe Biden, now confirmed as the Democratic candidate for Vice President, has repeatedly rejected the teaching of his Catholic Church that public officials have a grave responsibility to end the culture of death and stand forthrightly against the destruction of unborn human life. Biden strongly supports Roe v. Wade and has consistently used his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to campaign against every Supreme Court nominee who he believed might weaken the judicially-declared right to abortion. To be sure, Biden is not as extreme as his running mate, but then no Democrat in the Senate has gone as far as Obama in support of abortion. Biden voted against partial-birth abortion, a position that Obama sharply criticized. Biden occasionally has opposed federal funding of abortion, while Obama has called for repealing the Hyde Amendment and expanding public funding of abortion. Likewise, Biden (along with every other Democrat in the Senate) did support the Infants Born Alive Protection Act, which Obama worked so energetically to oppose in the state legislature.
And now, as yet another and even more powerful contrast, Governor Sarah Palin, who will be nominated as John McCain’s running mate, is consistently and unapologetically pro-life both in her political and personal life. In fact, contradicting any suggestion that Obama is more open to the moral witness of the pro-life movement than past Democratic presidential nominees, the Obama campaign’s very first statement on Palin's choice highlighted and attacked her opposition to Roe v. Wade. (The attack on Palin for opposing abortion came in the second sentence of the Obama statement, which used the first sentence to sneer at her former service as mayor of a small town).
A commitment to the sanctity of human life is hardly a mere political issue or the subject of political rhetoric for Governor Palin. Less than a year ago, she learned that the baby she was carrying had Down’s Syndrome. While she confessed that she and her husband were initially saddened by the news, they never considered aborting that child. They joyfully welcomed that baby into the world a little over four months ago. As Palin said at his birth: “Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.”
What an amazing and compassionate woman in public life we have in Sarah Palin! (Yes, I’ll freely admit it, I am moved and delighted by her selection to run on the Republican ticket.) Tragically, the evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of women who learn they are carrying a Down’s Syndrome child later undergo an abortion. Governor Palin will become an even more prominent witness for life through this nomination. Together with John McCain’s openly expressed and consistent pro-life record, Sarah Palin’s addition to the national ticket presents us with a clear and distinct choice on respect for unborn human life.
Greg Sisk
The Content of Dignity
The recent discussions of the location and foundation of human dignity -- is it primarily inherent in discrete individuals, or is it relationship-oriented? -- are interesting. But it seems to me that the only well founded of Steven Pinker's recent criticisms of dignity was the concept's lack of developed content, its ambiguity on lots of questions. For example, does human dignity forbid, or allow (even require as some say), holding a person responsible with his life for murdering another? To take another, Is dignity defined primarily by autonomy, or by substantive norms of behavior reflecting the highest possibilities of being human? How do we advance on fronts like this? (Admittedly, this is also true of other foundational concepts like "freedom," but to that extent those concepts also are not real helpful except for rhetoric, and need to be analyzed further.) Does answering the question whether dignity is a "way of being human" or a "property of being human" gets us very far on determining what human dignity requires?
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
