[In the column below, the author writes: "The
argument 'because the Catholic Church says so' is not going to persuade
anybody." Well, of course not. But that hasn't been the Church's argument, has it? Robby George, for example, has never said "because the Catholic Church says so." Anyway, I thought the column, by a longtime columnist for the Catholic weekly The Tablet [London], would be of interest of MOJ readers.]
The Tablet
June 9, 2007
‘The Church’s hard line these last 20 years may have led to more abortions, not fewer’
Clifford Longley
The archbishops who lead the Catholic Church in Edinburgh,
Westminster and Cardiff have made what looks like a coordinated attack
on Britain's abortion law, and particularly on Catholic politicians who
fail to oppose it. Those who collaborate with sin are as
guilty as its direct perpetrators, they have pointed out; and such
people, if Catholics, are disqualified from receiving Holy Communion.
To
put it as neatly as this, however, is to credit the position they are
advancing with a coherence and clarity it does not possess. Those
Catholics who are disqualified from Communion are those who are
consciously and deliberately guilty of serious sin. But no Catholic MP
is going to recognise him- or herself in such a description. If he or
she fails to oppose legislation that permits abortion, then the MP will
have been persuaded that there are perfectly good moral reasons for
doing so, such as the wish to reflect the views of their constituents,
their judgement of what serves the common good, or their fears of
reviving back-street abortions. If they are in good faith, they are
entitled to receive Communion.
Anyway, what legislation? There is
nothing regarding abortion now in the Parliamentary timetable (other
than a 10-minute rule bill on abortion counselling, defeated this week
in the Commons). In any case, the only legislation that would satisfy
the Church's strict criteria would be the recriminalisation of
abortion, with stiff jail sentences for all concerned. No candidate who
stood on such a platform would have any chance of success.
So
there is an element of jousting at windmills here. And I have to say
from my experience of both politics and journalism that a concerted
push by the Catholic Church to start a movement in favour of such a
radical change in the law would have exactly the opposite effect -
doubly so, if bishops were seen to be pressuring Catholic MPs to toe a
Catholic party line. I have seen it happen before. It is the reason the
limit on lawful abortions, currently 24 weeks, has not by now been
reduced to 22 or 20 (or even 12, as was mooted not long ago). Those who
regard such a reduction as a sensible adjustment in the light of
advancing medical knowledge shy away from any lowering of the time
limit precisely because they see the Catholic Church approaching with
its sledgehammer as soon as it is mentioned. Indeed it could be argued
that the Church's hard line these last 20 years or so may have led to
more abortions, not fewer.
To change the law on abortion in a
democracy, you have to win the argument first. That means winning over
those who find the idea of abortion undesirable but who are not yet
persuaded that an unviable human foetus has an absolute right to life,
let alone that the same applies from the moment of fertilisation. The
argument "because the Catholic Church says so" is not going to persuade
anybody. Indeed, non-Catholics cannot be bound by the teaching
authority of a Church they do not belong to. This is not to say that
such an act of persuasion is impossible, just that there has been no
sign from the Church's leadership that they see it as necessary.
It
means confronting a difficult question. Many devout people of other
faiths start from the same starting point as Catholics do, the
commandment "Thou shalt not kill." But faced for instance with an
11-year-old girl recently made pregnant because of incestuous rape,
most of them would say it was legitimate to choose the lesser evil.
What is the basic difference between the Catholic way of moral
reasoning, and their way, that leads to these different conclusions?
And how do you demonstrate that the Catholic way of moral reasoning is
superior? I have never heard anyone try it.
This is not an
attempt to demolish the core Catholic position, which I personally
accept, though I do not think the case for invoking the criminal law is
as cut and dried as Cardinal O'Brien does. Nevertheless there must be
some other explanation for the concerted push on abortion that we have
recently witnessed. Some suggest that churchmen are speaking out
because this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the 1967 Abortion
Act. But the most likely reason is that the Vatican has called on
hierarchies everywhere to declare where they stand on these issues -
regardless of the state of the argument in each country.
There
is always some satisfaction in being in the right, and it is easier
than producing a credible policy that might attract non-Catholic
support. Of that, sadly, there is so far no sign.
Chronicle of Higher Education Online
June 8, 2007
A glance at the current issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: The maddening effects of law school
Research suggests that law school has a corrosive effect on the
well-being, values, and motivation of students, say Kennon M. Sheldon,
an associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri at
Columbia, and Lawrence S. Krieger, a law professor at Florida State
University. "Indeed, the emotional distress of law students appears to
significantly exceed that of medical students and at times approach
that of psychiatric populations," they write. Law schools can mitigate
this phenomenon, they have found, by "enhancing their students'
feelings of autonomy."
In a three-year study of two similar, unidentified law schools, the
authors used questionnaires to measure the "subjective well-being" of
students, their "need satisfaction," how motivated they were for a
career in law, and their "perceived autonomy support." The authors also
compared the grades of students at each institution.
"Students at both schools declined in psychological need satisfaction
and well-being over the three years," write the authors. But, they
note, students with a greater sense of autonomy support from faculty
members experienced "less radical declines in need satisfaction," and
that in turn was linked to "better well-being in the third year and
also a higher grade-point average, better bar-exam results, and more
self-determined motivation for the first job after graduation."
The problem with most law schools, the authors write, is that they
place little emphasis on hiring faculty members with proven records of
teaching excellence. Instead, they tend to "emphasize theoretical
scholarship and the teaching of legal theory, and many hire and reward
faculty primarily based on scholarly potential and production," say the
authors. Observers suggest, they add, "that such priorities and
processes train students to ignore their own values and moral sense,
undermine students' sense of identity and self-confidence, and create
cynicism."
A sense of autonomy is therefore critical for law students, they say,
because "when authorities provide autonomy support and acknowledge
their subordinates' initiative and self-directedness, those
subordinates discover, retain, and enhance their intrinsic motivations
and at least internalize nonenjoyable but important extrinsic
motivations."
The article,
"Understanding the Negative Effects of Legal Education on Law Students:
A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory," is temporarily
available free through Sage Publications.
Chronicle of Higher Education Online
June 7, 2007
Robert Bork Cites 'Wanton' Negligence in Suing Yale Club for $1-Million
Irving
Kristol once defined a neoconservative as a liberal who had been mugged
by reality. By the same token, can a liberal be defined as a
neoconservative who had suddenly found a need for the tort bar?
We
may find that out in a Manhattan court, where Robert H. Bork — the
Supreme Court nominee rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1987 — filed a
$1-million lawsuit today against the Yale Club of New York City, whose negligence, he says, was to blame for injuries he suffered in a fall at the club a year ago.
Mr.
Bork, who is 80, said in the lawsuit that he had suffered injuries to
his left leg and his head when he tripped while stepping onto a dais at
the club to address a gathering sponsored by The New Criterion, a tradition-minded monthly journal of culture. According to the Associated Press,
the suit accuses the Yale Club of “wanton, willful, and reckless
disregard for the safety of its guests.” The suit, which cites the
“excruciating pain” he has experienced during a recovery that
continues, seeks damages for pain and suffering, medical treatment,
lost work time, and lost income.
Mr. Bork, a former federal
judge, first drew public attention in 1973, when he fired the Watergate
special prosecutor at the behest of President Richard M. Nixon. He
currently holds posts at the Hudson Institute, Stanford University’s
Hoover Institute, and the Ave Maria School of Law. He has written on
many subjects, including the need for tort reform.
Whatever
the outcome of Judge Bork’s quest for justice, his unfortunate
experience at the Yale Club seems to bear out what his fellow
conservatives have long complained of: When they venture into the
liberal bastions of the Ivy League, they need to watch their step. —Andrew Mytelka
Sometimes an MOJ blogger will refer to MOJ as countercultural. Well, my wife and I saw one of the most countercultural films we've seen in many a moon. (Countercultural where the "culture" is defined by much of "Hollywood", television , and modern adverstising.) A pro-family, even pro-life film. Judd Apatow's "Knocked Up". Ferociously funny and, much more importantly, ferociously satirical. Do yourself a favor: Go see it. But before you do, read the full review of the film by A.O. Scott in the New York Times (here). Here's a snippet: "Mr. Apatow’s critique of contemporary mores is easy to miss — it is
obscured as much by geniality as by profanity — but it is nonetheless
severe and directed at the young men who make up the core of this
film’s likely audience. The culture of sexual entitlement and
compulsive consumption encourages men to remain boys, for whom women
serve as bedmates and babysitters." If you do see the film, make sure you don't get out of your seat until all the credits have run their course: the family pictures that accompany the credits are wonderful. (Apatow's previous film, by the way, is "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", which I haven't seen--but now want to.)
