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, June 6, 2007

Rhode Island, Catholics, and Rudy Giuliani

By Michael Perry

[This is lifted from dotCommonweal.]

Providence Bishop on Rudy
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny on June 6, 2007, 10:59 am

Taking off my moral theologian hat, and putting on my  hat as a native Rhode Islander,  I found this column to be rather ironic. Very few people in Rhode Island would vote for Rudy anyway. In addition to being one of the most Catholic states in the nation, it's among the bluest of blue states.

In addition, probably due to our history as "Rogue's Island," we have an independent streak; we tolerate a lot from our politicians.  Vincent "Buddy" Cianci's brushes with the law didn't prevent him from being reelected mayor of Providence until the feds finally brought him down on RICO charges--some people even thought the corruption charges were too harsh--a man has to make a decent living, after all.. Defining ourselves in opposition to puritanical Massachusetts, we are all a bit rebellious. Personal scandal, well, the general attitude is that we all have our problems. Lots of of Rhode Island grandmothers prayed for Congressman Patrick Kennedy, who had a little public trouble with addiction. He was a nice boy and he helped a lot of Rhode Island grandmothers. Come to think of it, Rudy would fit in pretty well in Rhode Island--if only he were a Democrat.

All politics are local. And Rhode Island politics are very local indeed. But the bishop's idea of offering Rudy a photo op in exchange for a $1500 donation to a pro-life charity; now that's good. That's the kind of constructive give-and-take Rhode Islanders understand.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Religion, Politics, and Barack Obama

By Michael Perry

Sightings  5/31/07

Obama's Faith:  A Civil and Social Gospel
-- Robert M. Franklin

[Robert M. Franklin is Presidential Distinguished Professor of Social Ethics at Emory University, Atlanta, and the author of Crisis in the Village: Restoring Hope in African American Communities (Fortress Press, 2007).]

One by one Senator Barack Obama is passing the necessary tests for national leadership.  Probing questions have been raised about his experience, race, early education, parents, voting record, statesmanship, and more.  He has answered those questions with poise and respect.  But when attention turns to Senator Obama's faith, I get worried.

As Martin Marty noted in a recent column ("Keeping the Faith at Trinity United Church of Christ," April 2, 2007), some media hounds have focused on Obama's home church of choice.  Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side is one of the nation's most progressive African American mega-churches.  Led for thirty-five years by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the church fuses into its core Christian identity a set of cultural strains that are vibrant in contemporary Black life, including liberation theology, Afrocentrism, and progressive politics.

The church has appealed especially to baby boomers who came of age during the cultural revolution of the 1960s.  Dr. Wright has managed to bring together the disciples of Martin Luther King, Jr. with the Black Nationalist disciples of Malcolm X, and to put them all in the service of promoting more equitable policies for the least advantaged members of our society.  Indeed, he is often credited with making it possible for many disaffected Black separatists to return to the church and to seek change within the system.

Unfortunately, uninformed pundits (a deliberate oxymoron) from Fox TV recently weighed in on a congregation and a community about which they know very little.  Their purpose is to embarrass Obama by insinuating that he is a closeted Black separatist or worse.  But they fail to appreciate something distinctive about American religion and public life.  The best of American political tradition permits -- and perhaps requires -- candidates both to acknowledge their ethnic and regional particularity, and to transcend that particularity in loyalty to the general human condition.  John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mario Cuomo, and Barbara Jordan all illustrated this noble tradition.

In 2006, at a speech to Jim Wallis's Sojourners conference, Obama elaborated on his understanding of how faith should appear in the public square.  It was a rational, balanced, thoughtful articulation of a socially responsible Christian faith, something rarely heard or said by politicians in our political culture.  His words were especially assuring to people who feel that President Bush has abused religious language and personal faith to justify a horrific war and tax cuts for America's wealthiest citizens.

Obama's inner life appears to be driven by a civil and social gospel that America desperately needs at this hour.  And that inner life has been nurtured by a congregation that loves God and celebrates the beauty and power of the Black experience in America.  Why is this a cause for alarm?  At a time when there is so much of what Martin Marty calls "wishy-washy, waning religion," it is exciting to see a congregation committed to improving the lives of people who have been the victims of bad public policy and public neglect.

The fact that churches like Trinity remain in the city and serve people on the margins of society suggests that they may be closer to the mission of Jesus than some of our finest cathedrals and suburban sanctuaries.  And while I imagine that Fourth Presbyterian Church in downtown Chicago's Gold Coast neighborhood would love to have the Senator and his family as members, the working poor and those who have yet to enjoy the American dream need him more.

I, for one, hope that Obama continues to undertake his ministry of inspiring hope among people who feared they might never dream again, while reconciling tensions within the Black political culture.  If he can do these things while appealing to a large and diverse American public, then he will have passed the ultimate test of leadership: reminding us that we are better, wiser, stronger, and safer when we transcend our fears and work together rather than apart.

[Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.]

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

UPDATE: If you do plan to come to Emory in October ...

By Michael Perry

... pre-registration is required (here).  If you don't know what I'm talking about, please click here.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Zen Story

By Michael Perry

A zen story, for the high school and/or college graduates among our children, who have heard from the colleges or graduate schools to which they applied, either with good news or with bad—or, more likely, with some of both:

One day a farmer’s horse ran away. That evening his neighbors gathered around to commiserate with the farmer over such bad luck. The farmer said, “May be.” The next day the horse returned, followed by six wild horses. The neighbors couldn’t believe the farmer’s sudden good luck. The farmer said, “May be.” The next day, while trying to ride one of the wild horses, the farmer’s son was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors again commiserated over the farmer’s bad luck, but all he said was, “May be.” The day after that, army officers came through the village conscripting the oldest sons, but the farmer’s son was rejected because of his broken leg. When the neighbors came to say how fortunate everything turned out, the farmer said, “May be.”

Come to Atlanta--to Emory--in October

By Michael Perry

Emory University
Center for the Study of Law and Religion

Our Invitation

Twenty-five years ago, Emory University founded a program in law and religion as part of its mission to build an interdisciplinary university and to increase understanding of the fundamental role religion has played in shaping law, politics, and society.

In October, the Center for the Study of Law and Religion (CSLR) will celebrate a quarter-century of scholarship and teaching in this important field. But even more importantly, we shall look ahead to the next 25 years to try to anticipate and situate the hardest questions of law and religion that will face us as believers and citizens, as scholars and practitioners, as persons and peoples. Our goal is to plot a course of study that provides the intellectual resources necessary for the world to define and to defuse the most volatile interactions of law and religion.

We would like you to join us in celebrating this milestone at a major conference, From Silver to Gold: The Next 25 Years of Law and Religion, to be held on the Emory University campus.

Wednesday, October 24

8:00 p.m.: Opening Keynote - Emory Conference Center Grand Ballroom
“The Foundations, Fundamentals, and Future of Law and Religion”
-James T. Laney, President Emeritus, Emory University Founder of the Law and Religion Program at Emory University

Thursday, October 25

9:00-10:30 a.m.: The Future of Law and Religion
“World Law and Universal Spiritual Values”
-Harold J. Berman, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law, Emory University

“The Future of Religion and Equality”
-Kent R. Greenawalt, University Professor of Law, Columbia University

“Prophets, Priests, and Kings: Morality, Religion, and Law in a Pluralistic Society”
-M. Cathleen Kaveny, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: The Future of Religious Liberty
“A Conscripted Prophet’s Guesses About the Future of Religious Liberty in America”
-Douglas Laycock, Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law, University of Michigan

“The Future Challenges of International Religious Liberty”
-David Little, T.J. Dermot Dunphy Professor, Harvard University

“A Right to Moral Freedom as One of the Futures of the Right to Religious Freedom”
-Michael J. Perry, Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law, Emory University

2:00-3:30 p.m.: The Currie Lecture in Law and Religion
“Against Utopian Legalism”
-Jean Bethke Elshtain, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics,
University of Chicago

“One Center, Many Centers”
-John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

4:00-5:30 p.m.: The Future of Law, Religion, and Marriage
“Children’s Beliefs and Family Law”
-Margaret F. Brinig, Fritz Duda Family Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

“Family Law and Christian Jurisprudence”
-Don S. Browning, Alexander Campbell Professor of Ethics and the Social Sciences Emeritus,
University of Chicago

“Religion and the Moral Foundation of Family Law”
-Carl E. Schneider, Chauncey Stillman Professor of Law & Professor of Internal Medicine,
University of Michigan

7:30 p.m.: The Decalogue Lecture: Law, Religion, and the Future of the
African-American Family - Glenn Memorial Auditorium, Emory University
“The Foundational Covenant: Strengthening the Black Family”
-Enola G. Aird, Director, The Motherhood Project, Institute for American Values

“Religion, Education, and the Primacy of Family”
-Stephen L. Carter, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Yale University

“The ‘Marriage Gap’: A Case for Strengthening Marriage in the 21st Century”
-Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia

Friday, October 26

9:00 -10:30 a.m.: The Future of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Legal Studies
“The Future of Jewish Law and Legal Studies”
-Elliot N. Dorff, Sol and Anne Dorff Distinguished Professor of Philosophy,
University of Judaism, Los Angeles

“The Future Contests of Islamic Law and Politics”
-Baber Johansen, Professor of Islamic Religious Studies, Harvard University

“The Unbearable Lightness of Christian Legal Scholarship”
-David A. Skeel, S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law, University of Pennsylvania

11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: The Future of Law, Religion, and Human Rights
“The ‘Law and Morality’ of Human Rights in Islamic Societies”
-Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na‘im, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law, Emory University

“Human Rights as Divine Entitlements”
-David Novak, Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies, University of Toronto

“Can and Should Religion Play a Role in the Struggle for Human Rights?”
-Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology, Yale University

2:00-3:30 p.m.: The Future of Law, Religion, and International Affairs
“Tolerance in Religion, Law, and Politics: The International Challenge in the 21st Century”
-T. Jeremy Gunn, Director, American Civil Liberties Union Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

“New Tools; Old Rules: Harmonizing Religious Freedom in the Developed and Developing World”
-Robert A. Seiple, President and CEO, Council for America’s First Freedom

“The Grounds of Basic Equality”
-Jeremy Waldron, University Professor of Law, New York University

4:00 p.m.: The Alonzo L. McDonald Lecture
“Can We Imagine a Global Civil Religion?”
-Robert N. Bellah, Elliott Professor of Sociology Emeritus, University of California at Berkeley

“The Religious Future of Law, the Legal Future of Religion”
-Martin E. Marty, Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago

Friday, May 25, 2007

"Sexual Identity Law in Context"

By Michael Perry

A former student (and present friend) of mine, Shannon Gilreath, has just published a casebook:

Sexual Identity Law in Context:  Case and Materials (Thomson * West, 2007).

Shannon, who now teaches at Wake Forest, is a gay man and a convert to Catholicism.  Like yours truly, Shannon dissents from the magisterial teaching on homosexuality.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Cortez the Killer

By Michael Perry

For you Neil Young fans, listen to this brilliant performance while you read this piece:

Pope faces German revolt as anger grows in Latin America

John Hooper in Rome and Rory Carroll in Caracas
Friday,  May 25, 2007
The Guardian                   

Pope Benedict was in trouble on two fronts yesterday, struggling to contain anger over remarks he made in Latin America and facing a revolt by former colleagues in Germany.

Following criticism of his views on the spread of Christianity in Latin America, the Pope acknowledged to pilgrims in Rome that "shadows" accompanied the conversion of indigenous groups. He said it was impossible "to forget the suffering [and] injustices inflicted by the colonisers on the indigenous population".

But his latest statement stopped well short of the apology demanded by, among others, Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, and he repeated his claim that Catholicism had shaped South America's culture favourably.

On a tour of Brazil earlier this month, the Pope said indigenous populations had welcomed European priests, who arrived with the conquistadores, and claimed they had been "silently longing" for Christianity. The proclamation of the gospels, he said, "did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture".

Mr Chávez, who has a fraught relationship with his country's Catholic hierarchy, went on television to protest at the Pope's remarks, saying: "There was a real genocide here and, if we were to deny it, we would be denying our very selves." The episode was reminiscent of the row ignited last year by Pope Benedict's references to Islam. And it appeared to indicate a surprising degree of insensitivity or indifference on the part of the Pope and his advisers to the views of others.

Latin America also lies at the root of the challenge facing Benedict in Europe. According to the Catholic news agency Adista, more than 100 German theologians have signed an appeal for an overhaul of the Vatican department that oversees their work.

Adista said the signatories included several contemporaries of Pope Benedict, who himself taught theology in his native Germany. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the department, known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, so the document represents a direct attack on the Pope's work.

It was originally written as an article by Peter Hünermann, a retired professor of the University of Tübingen, following a reprimand handed out by the Congregation this year to a Spanish Jesuit. Father Jon Sobrino, a liberation theologian who teaches at a university in El Salvador, was told his writings were "not in conformity with the doctrine of the church".

But the Vatican's verdict has since been challenged by leading European theologians who said it betrayed a "disregard of the theological developments of the last 50 years".

Professor Hünermann said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was still organised in much the same way as when it was known as the Holy Inquisition, as a body for exercising censorship. He said there were "deficiencies" in the staff and that "intelligent restructuring" was needed.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Amy Uelmen's ...

By Michael Perry

... wonderful poem brought this to mind:

A Bed for the Night
Bertolt Brecht

I hear that in New York
At the corner of 26th Street and Broadway
A man stands every evening during the winter months
And gets beds for the homeless there
By appealing to passers-by.

It won't change to world
It won't improve relations among men
It will not shorten the age of exploitation
But a few men have a bed for the night
For a night the wind is kept from them
The snow meant for them falls on the roadway.

Don't put the book down on reading this, man,

A few people have a bed for the night
For a night the wind is kept from them
The snow meant for them falls on the roadway
But it won't change the world
It won't improve relations among men
It will not shorten the age of exploitation.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Karen Stohr Responds

By Michael Perry

For earlier posts, click here, here, and here.

Karen responds:

First, let me suggest that is useful to keep the question of whether a proposed speaker counts as a publicly dissenting Catholic from the question of whether a proposed speaker holds views that the Church considers immoral. As I lack the qualifications to address the first question, I’ll stick with the second. Besides, President Bush and Senator Clinton can hardly be rejected as speakers on the grounds that they are bad Catholics. We also want to remember that the moral status of abortion/ESC research does not immediately transfer to the act of voting to support or uphold legal abortion/ESC research (or voting for people who vote to support or uphold legal abortion/ESC research.)

Let us assume that the proposed controversial speaker would confine her speech to the typical banalities and platitudes of commencement addresses. And let us assume that being asked to deliver a commencement address really is an honor, particularly when accompanied by an honorary degree, as Richard has noted. Richard makes the following remark, with which I agree:

“While the honor doesn't necessarily mean that the school endorses everything the person has ever said or done, the choice to honor someone who disagrees with Church teaching on very important issues has the potential to interfere with the clarity of the message that the school ought to be trying to communicate.”

Of course, “has the potential to interfere with” does not mean “will interfere with”, and in the case of abortion, the Church’s stance is about as clear and unequivocal as it gets. I would not expect much confusion. But I don’t think that confusion is really the issue anyway. I do think it’s about endorsement, and more specifically, whether it is possible to honor someone for her contributions to some aspects of political life while remaining sufficiently distant from the others to avoid cooperation or scandal. And I think that this depends a great deal on the speaker’s actual commitments and the extent to which her achievements and accomplishments are wrapped up with the controversial views. Presumably, a Catholic institution could not bestow an honorary degree on someone like Kate Michelman (who probably wouldn’t accept it) without engaging in formal cooperation, for it is hard to see what else she might be honored for other than her efforts to keep abortion legal.    But not all politicians with pro-choice voting records fall into this category.

The judgment that a speaker’s achievements cannot be separated from her pro-choice voting record on abortion or embryonic stem cell research must be based in the principle that having that voting record is such a grave moral error that it cannot be overlooked or set aside. I know that this seems plausible enough to many people, and yet I would urge caution here. For the judgment to hold, it has to constitute not just moral error, but moral error so culpable as to render the person a morally inappropriate choice for commencement. Pro-choice politicians mostly fall into two camps: (1) those who do not believe that embryos and fetuses have full moral rights, and (2) those who believe it, but who believe it on theological grounds and hence, take themselves to have no arguments against abortion that they can properly bring into space of public reasons. (I will grant that some insincerely claim to be in (2) when they are really in (1), but I will not grant that this is always the case.) Either way, the Catholic remedy should be a thoroughly convincing natural law-based secular argument against abortion and ESC research, but these are not so easy to come by, and anyway, it’s unclear to me that people are appropriately held culpable for unfamiliarity with philosophical arguments.

I’d rather leave the commencement podium fairly (though not completely) wide open on all sides. It just strikes me as, well, more Christian. But on this point, I certainly see how reasonable people might disagree.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Hey, Rick, get with it!

By Michael Perry

"Rudolph W. Giuliani said that Republicans needed to tolerate dissenting views on abortion rights, gun control and gay rights if they wanted to retain the White House."  Put that in your pipe and smoke it!  :-)

[To read the whole NYT piece, click here.]

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive