Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Call for Papers
Sixth Baha’i Conference on Law
Exploring the Intersections of Religion and Governance
October 10-11, 2008
American University, Washington College of Law
Washington, D.C.
Robert B. Ahdieh (Emory Law School)
Neysun Mahboubi (Yale Law School)
[From the Stuntz/Skeel blog, Less Than the Least:]
I’m a registered Republican and will probably vote for McCain in November. Even so, yesterday seems to me one of the great days in American history. And it’s a great day in part because it all seems so ordinary: two candidates battled for a major-party nomination, and one of them came out on top, barely. That has happened before (mostly in Republican races—since, for most of its history, the Democratic Party required that its presidential nominees win two-thirds of all delegate votes, not a simple majority). But this time, the candidate who came out on top is a black man, and that hasn’t happened before.
I remember when Doug Wilder was inaugurated Virginia’s governor in January 1990: the first elected black governor in American history, inaugurated in the city that once served as the capital of a nation founded to preserve black slavery. Former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, scion of Richmond’s white establishment, administered the oath of office. When Wilder had taken that oath, Powell leaned into the microphone and said: “It’s a great day for Virginia.” It was. Just as yesterday was a great day for the United States.
This past spring I taught a jurisprudence seminar organized around "Self-Evident Truths: Catholic Perspectives on American Law" with readings also chosen from parts of the Catechism, Compendium, various encyclicals, and a pastoral letter. I greatly enjoyed the course, and although I have not yet read the student evaluations, they seemed to enjoy it also. Here is the first (of maybe two or three) student comments, reflections, and questions that I'll post.
After reading Rob Vischer's chapter - title above - one student wrote
I've never really thought too much about this topic, especially in the legal context that Vischer writes about. I guess since I'm not a hugely religious person, it has never occured to me that the law could correspond to morality. I've spent almost three years now in law school, and it seems that all my professors have been stressing that the law and morality are in fact two distinct concepts. I never questioned it and just accepted that this is how it is and should be. No matter the client or his plight, my job would be the same - to provide competent representation and advocate for the client's rights. Calling it "consumerism" really drives this point home.
Is this the typical state of affairs at most law schools? Is the separation of law and morality an assumed part of the cultural air breathed in most law schools and classrooms?
This student then turns his attention to the substance of Vischer's essay, wondering if it isn't a bit utopian. He says that Vischer's ideas sound great
but [they] could only work if everyone practice [principles of solidarity and subsidiarity]/ For example, if I am ready to "lose myself for the sake of my neighbor, but my neighbor would not do the same, then I stand to be exploited by my neighbor (and anyone else who doesn't practice my same values). I suppose you could say that a believer has to endure whatever consequences arise if he is to live up to God's promise, but how practical is this, really? I just think you can only be as nice as the world is to you, or you'll always finish last.
Rob (or anyone else), how do you answer this student? Must there be reciprocity for Catholic prespectives to work? Do nice guys necessarily finish last? Is finishing last the worst thing in the world?
Just in time for the general election!
Symposium on Catholic Social Thought and the Law
Catholic Social Thought and Citizenship
Villanova University School of Law
October 11, 2008
CALL FOR PAPERS
On the eve of the 2008 election, Villanova University School of Law's sixth annual symposium on Catholic social thought will take up the question of citizenship and political participation. Every four years, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops releases a document entitled "Faithful Citizenship," and the media engage in speculation about the "Catholic vote." The Bishops assert that "responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in public life is a moral obligation." After visiting America, Alexis de Tocqueville worried that Christianity neglected the duty of citizenship while also arguing that religion was the first of America's political institutions.
But Catholic social thought arguably lacks a coherent account of citizenship. As John Coleman, S.J., complained in the pages of Commonweal over 20 years ago, "Christianity has not adequately adumbrated or embodied the moral ideal of the citizen in its social ethics or popular preaching." Among the questions to be addressed by the symposium are the responsibilities of citizenship in Catholic social teaching, the relationship between faithful citizenship and voting, the role of the American Catholic Church in public life, the duties of public officials, and the historical development of citizenship in Catholic social thought. The Symposium will bring together legal scholars, political scientists, theologians, and philosophers to explore the implications of citizenship for Catholic legal theory.
Articles presented at the Conference will be considered for publication in the Journal of Catholic Social Thought, a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary journal published by Villanova University. Please submit paper proposals or requests for more information to:
Dean Mark A. Sargent
or
Professor Michael Moreland
I would like to thank Rick for his bringing to our attention the recent development at York University in Canada concerning the ban on speech that does not support abortion. I have attached the York University link [HERE].
From the perspective of Catholic Legal Theory, and a dash of responsible academic freedom to add savor, I wonder what Ms. Massa would think of the proposal that the discussion of any women’s right involves the need to discuss what is constitutive of women’s rights in a free exchange of perspectives? From the quotations attributed to her by the York publication, it appears that she has unilaterally suppressed Article 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Everyone has… freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” Perhaps the Charter does not apply on the campus of York University.
RJA sj
Here is a link to a new blog, Fidelis, relating to the whole "Catholics in the public square / faithful citizenship" thing.
We are all thinking and writing about faithful citizenship in the context of the presidential context. It might be fun to "go local". Here's an interesting read, from America:
Throughout my career, I had regularly taught courses in Catholic social ethics and was gratified to find students altruistic and enthusiastic about the idea that society could be transformed by their decisions and actions. Yet the more I taught these courses, the more I wanted to know how to translate this body of teaching into practical, everyday decisions and actions. What could educated Catholic professionals do to make the social, economic and political networks of their communities more fair and just, more supportive of the common good? How does one live out a preferential option for the poor in one’s professional life? How does the principle of solidarity apply to one’s daily use of money?
While I could remind students of the Gospel charge to do hands-on charity and service, such actions do not really address the structural causes of injustice, which, as Paul VI taught, must be a primary focus of the Catholic witness in our time. The pope described the need for Catholics to bring to conversion “the activities in which they engage, and the lives and concrete milieu which are theirs.” The question was how.
Become the mayor!
Eugene Volokh reports, here, that the student government at a University (!) in Canada is moving to ban anti-abortion advocacy:
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."
Oh, Canada . . .
Dang. It looks like "Constantine's Sword" -- James Carroll's entry in the "the Catholic Church brought us the Holocaust and loads of other bad things" genre -- is going to be a "documentary." William Doino's thoughts, at First Things, are worth reading. He ends with this:
[T]the film stoops to its lowest level by ending with a disingenuous attack on Benedict XVI: “Months after associating Islam with ‘things only evil and inhuman,’ Benedict XVI reversed reforms of Vatican II to authorize a Good Friday Mass that includes a previous disavowed prayer—for the conversion of Jews.”
What Benedict actually did, at his now famous Regensburg address, was quote (not endorse) a fourteenth-century emperor in order to highlight the relation between faith and reason. Moreover, there is no such thing as a “Good Friday Mass.” On Good Friday, the day Christ died, Catholics have a service, but they do not celebrate Mass—something everyone trained as a priest should know. The old rite’s Good Friday liturgy does indeed carry a prayer for Jews, but its language has been revised by Benedict precisely to avoid unnecessary offense; and were the Church to formally disavow evangelization, it would betray its very mission. As recently demonstrated by his visit to an America synagogue, Pope Benedict’s outreach to Jews is a central feature of his pontificate. He has written extensively on the subject and once published an essay, “The Heritage of Abraham,” that is among the most beautiful Catholic tributes ever penned to Judaism.
By producing this egregious film, Carroll and Jacoby missed a real opportunity to appreciate the events taking place in Catholic-Jewish relations today. Among them was Benedict’s visit to a Cologne synagogue shortly after he became pope. Carroll mentions the visit but severely distorts the moving speech Benedict delivered and fails to mention Jewish reaction. Paul Spiegel, the leader of Germany’s Jews, was so overwhelmed by the pope’s presence that he told reporters: “If someone told me 45 years ago, ‘You are going to be in Cologne, and the pope will visit you in a synagogue,’ I wouldn’t have believed it. We have come a long way in mutual support and understanding and, as the pope said, in mutual love.”
With respect to the latest round of attention to my friend Doug Kmiec's views on the presidential race -- about which Michael blogged yesterday: I take it to be obvious that neither Prof. Kmiec nor anyone else should (or, I would think, may) be denied access to the Eucharist merely for supporting Sen. Obama's candidacy. Obviously (though unfortunately, in my view), plenty of thoughtful, faithful Catholics support Sen. Obama. By expressing this support, and arriving at the views he now holds (and did hold, one assumes, when he was one of Gov. Romney's chief advisors), Doug has certainly not done anything that would warrant the actions described in E.J. Dionne's column. And, I have not read anything, by anyone -- including by any "conservative" -- suggesting that the described actions would have been appropriate.
That said -- again, and again, and again -- even those who join Doug in supporting Sen. Obama could fairly be confused, and unsatisfied, by the accounts Doug has so far provided for how it is that someone with his views, commitments, writings, and record -- one that includes, again, recent and strong support for Gov. Mitt Romney -- now so enthusiastically endorses Sen. Obama, whose views and record on many issues that, over the years, Doug has put at the heart of his work are strikingly at odds with Doug's.
UPDATE: Here, my colleagues Gerry Bradley says pretty much the same thing, but in better prose.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
