Plese cick here to read a critical response to Karen Stohr's op-ed, which I posted yesterday.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Critical Response to Karen Stohr
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Catholic Universities (and High Schools) and Commencement Speakers
MOJ-friend, Notre Dame undergrad, and Georgetown philosopher Karen Stohr published an op-ed today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Many MOJ-readers will be engaged--some will be provoked--by what Karen has to say. So, let me convert the op-ed into a post (my idea, not Karen's):
What graduation speeches should do for students
By Karen Stohr
Commencement exercises are a rite of spring and so, alas, are controversies
over commencement speakers. At secular and religious schools alike, these
disputes reveal deep moral and political divisions among students, faculty,
alumni and parents.
What, if anything, does an institution's choice of a speaker indicate about its
moral priorities and commitments? My alma mater, St. Joseph's Academy in St.
Louis County, has found itself addressing this question in the public spotlight
with its recent decision to rescind a speaking invitation to U.S. Sen. Claire
McCaskill, D-Mo.
The invitation apparently was withdrawn in response to complaints from parents
who think that McCaskill ought to be prohibited from speaking at a Catholic
school commencement on the grounds that her publicly expressed views about
abortion and stem cell research conflict with Catholic moral teaching.
These angry parents have company. The Virginia-based Cardinal Newman Society,
for example, makes a point of scrutinizing commencement speakers booked for
Catholic colleges and universities and protesting those whom it regards as
objectionable.
The moral principle at work here is the concept of "scandal," a word that has a
technical meaning in Catholic moral thought. Roughly, "giving scandal" means
leading others into moral wrongdoing through words, deeds or omissions. It is
one way of corrupting others.
Now, it is the rare commencement speaker who can manage to lead her listeners
into anything, especially grave moral wrongdoing. If it would give scandal for
McCaskill to give a commencement speech at St. Joe, it surely couldn't be on
the grounds that she would be exhorting students to engage in immoral practices
or confusing them about Catholic teaching on abortion and stem cell research,
which is widely known.
No, the real moral concern must be that having McCaskill as a commencement
speaker somehow would constitute an endorsement of her views by a Catholic
institution. But is that the case?
By their nature, educational institutions are places where controversial ideas
find a platform. I am a faculty member in the philosophy department at a
Catholic university. Every semester, I assign my students readings that
conflict with Church teaching, alongside traditional Catholic sources; indeed,
I cannot teach philosophy any other way.
At its core, education consists of the common pursuit of truth. Catholic
educational institutions, like their secular counterparts, have faith in the
power of human reason to discern what is true and what is not. The job of an
educator is to help students expand and develop their intellectual capacities,
and that requires confronting new ideas and grappling with opposing points of
view.
The path to knowledge is a difficult and murky one, and making our way forward
is a joint effort. Commencement exercises are a celebration of education as a
communal project. In asking someone to speak, an institution honors that
person's ability to contribute to that project, but the invitation cannot
possibly imply endorsement of each and every idea she contributes. If that were
the standard, commencement speakers quickly would become extinct.
Rescinding McCaskill's invitation to participate in this celebration does more
than demonstrate disagreement with her views on abortion and stem cell
research; it also expresses the attitude that she is not worth listening to on
any subject at all and denies her any rightful role in this communal pursuit of
truth.
That is hard to reconcile with Christian love and respect for human dignity.
What message will St. Joe students carry away from this incident? That the
Church holds fast to its moral positions with integrity, grace and charity?
Probably not.
More likely, they will come away thinking that the appropriate moral response
to someone who hold views one regards as mistaken is to slam the door in her
face, on the grounds that she is unworthy of a place at the table.
And that would be a scandalous form of Catholic education.
[Karen Stohr is a graduate of St. Joseph's Academy, Class of 1988. She is an
assistant professor of philosophy at Georgetown University, holds an
undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame and Master's and
Doctorate degrees in philosophy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.]
Giuliani to Support Abortion Rights
New York Times
May 10, 2007
After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.
At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.
That approach, they said, became more appealing after the Legislature in Florida, another state they said would be receptive to Mr. Giuliani, voted last week to move the primary forward to the end of January.
The shift in emphasis comes as the Giuliani campaign has struggled to deal with the fallout from the first Republican presidential candidate debate, in which he gave halting and apparently contradictory responses to questions about his support for abortion rights.
Mr. Giuliani’s aides were concerned both because the responses opened him up to a new round of criticism from abortion critics, who have never been happy with the prospect of a Republican presidential candidate who supports abortion rights, while threatening to undercut his image as a tough-talking iconoclast who does not equivocate on tough issues.
The campaign’s approach would be a sharp departure from the traditional route to the Republican nomination in the last 20 years, in which Republicans have highlighted their antiabortion views.
Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortion and his donations to Planned Parenthood. “Ultimately, there has to be a right to choose,” he said.
Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, “I guess we are going to find out.”
Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that his stance on abortion alone might disqualify him with some voters, but he said, “I am at peace with that.”
[To read the rest, click here.]
Ave Maria Law School, Revisited
Chronicle of Higher Education
May 10, 2007
Conflict Over Relocation Divides a Catholic Law School, as Professors Say They Have Been Cut Out of the Decision
A mutiny may be brewing at a Roman Catholic law school whose board has voted to pack it up and move it from Ann Arbor, Mich., to a rural community in southwestern Florida.
More than half of the professors at the Ave Maria School of Law are fighting the move to Ave Maria, Fla., the town being created by Thomas S. Monaghan, the former Domino's Pizza mogul who founded the law school eight years ago.
Critics, including many alumni and students, say the move to the Catholic-oriented town between Naples and Immokalee, Fla., would jeopardize the independent law school's progress. They accuse Mr. Monaghan of moving a successful law school to prop up a struggling university in a town that has already attracted controversy. A spokesman for Ave Maria said Mr. Monaghan was not available for comment.
[To read the rest, click here.]
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Abortion, Brazil, and Benedict
New York Times
May 9, 2007
SÃO PAULO, Brazil, May 9 — Hours before Pope Benedict XVI was scheduled to arrive here on his first pastoral trip to Latin America, a heated dispute broke out today between the Roman Catholic Church and the Brazilian government about abortion policy.
Church officials have said that the pope will reaffirm the Vatican’s traditional stand on the issue in public pronouncements during his five-day visit here. But the cordial atmosphere that had been expected to prevail now appears to be threatened by sharp exchanges between senior Brazilian government officials and their counterparts in the church.
The controversy began on Monday, when Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil, said in a radio interview with Roman Catholic radio stations that he was of two minds on abortion. Though personally opposed, he said, as president he believes that “the state cannot abdicate from caring for this as a public health question, because to do so would lead to the death of many young women in this country.”
Except in very limited and specific circumstances, abortion is against the law in Brazil, which is the most populous Roman Catholic nation in the world with an estimated 140 million church members. Even so, abortions are not uncommon: clandestine clinics known in Brazilian slang as “angel factories” perform an estimated one to two million abortions a year.
But the Minister of Health, José Gomes Temporão, suggested in March that a change in the law, which now imposes prison sentences of up to three years for women convicted of having an illegal abortion, might be appropriate. He called for a national referendum on abortion, prompting denunciations from pulpits across the country and a protest march on Tuesday in Brasilia, the capital.
[Read the rest ... here.]
Contemporary Culture Revisited
Associated Press
May 9, 2007
Chicago Dumps Racy Law Firm Billboard
CHICAGO (AP) -- A racy billboard proclaiming ''Life's short. Get a divorce'' caused enough of an uproar, city workers stripped it from its downtown perch after a week.
It wasn't so much about the partially clothed man and woman on the law firm's ad. It was the phrase that lawyers Corri Fetman and Kelly Garland chose that drew scores of complaints from neighbors and from other attorneys who said it reflected poorly on their profession.
A city alderman who lives nearby found a technical reason to jettison the sign.
''I called the building inspector and told him to do his job and he did,'' said Alderman Burton Natarus. ''It has nothing to do with content or anything else. They did not have a permit and they were ordered to take it down.''
Fetman and Garland say they're upset the sign was removed.
''They ripped our billboard down without due process,'' Fetman said. ''We own that art. I feel violated.''
Despite its brief run, the sign apparently was good for business. Since it went up last week, the two women said calls to their law firm have gone up dramatically.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The Plot Thickens . . .
New York Times
May 3, 2007
The inquiry focuses on whether Monica Goodling, formerly a top aide to Mr. Gonzales, sought to determine the political affiliations of job applicants before they were hired as prosecutors — potentially a violation of civil service laws and a break with a tradition of nonpartisanship in the career ranks at the Justice Department.
The inquiry by the department’s inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility was announced on a day in which the House and Senate Judiciary Committees advanced their broader investigations of issues related to last year’s dismissals of eight United States attorneys.
[To read the rest of the article, click here.]
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Eduardo's New Paper
| Is Public Reason Counterproductive? | |
|
EDUARDO M. PENALVER Cornell Law School April 17, 2007 Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-004 |
|
|
Abstract: The debate over the proper role of religion in public life has raged on for decades and shows little signs of slowing down. Proponents of restrictive accounts of public reason have proceeded under the assumption that religious and deep moral disagreement constitutes a threat to social stability that must be tamed. In contrast to this "scary story" linking pluralism with the threat of instability, there exists within political theory a competing, "happy story" according to which pluralism affirmatively contributes to stability by creating incentives for groups to moderate their demands. Whether the scary story or happy story is a more accurate reflection of our reality is a difficult empirical question, but one that ought to matter a great deal to discussions of public reason. Acting as if the scary story were true when the happy story is in fact operating will lead proponents of public reason to stifle the healthful effects of robust pluralism, degrading the quality of public deliberation and ultimately undermining stability. In other words, if the happy story turns out to be the right one, restrictive accounts of public reason may turn out to be counterproductive, hastening the very deliberative and social harms they aim to forestall. Click here for the download link. |
|
News from Ireland about Abortion
MOJ-friend Gerry Whyte writes: "The abortion issue has raised its head again here in Ireland. Yesterday a 17 year old girl in the care of the State applied to the High Court for permission to travel to the UK to terminate her pregnancy, having recently discovered that her foetus suffers from anencephaly and will not survive for more than 2-3 days after birth." Here is a brief news report from RTE, dated May 1:
The High Court is due to hear on Thursday a challenge by a 17-year-old girl against a Health Service Executive decision to stop her leaving the State for an abortion. The 17-year-old, who has been told that her child cannot survive outside the womb, has been in the care of the HSE since February. Known as Ms D, she is four months pregnant and wants to travel to the UK for a termination. The decision was made when the teenager discovered the baby she is carrying is suffering from a condition which is causing its brain not to develop properly. She has been told that the child will only live a very short time, if at all, after its born. The HSE is refusing to allow her to leave the country. MS D is challenging the court order placing her in care, in so far as it restricts her leaving the State. She is also asking the High Court to overrule the HSE's decision to ask gardaí to stop her. And she is challenging the HSE's decision to refuse to let her travel to terminate the pregnancy unless there was a risk she would commit suicide.
Lawyers for the 17-year-old girl told the High Court today it was of great importance this case be heard as speedily as possible. Gerard Durkan, senior counsel for the HSE, said the HSE was anxious that whatever course of action best secured the girl's welfare should be taken, having regard to legal constraints. Donal O'Donnell, senior counsel for the Attorney General said it was the AG's position that the HSE had no power to direct the gardaí to restrain someone who is the subject of a care order from travelling abroad. He said gardaí did not have the power to stop someone travelling simply because they were the subject of a care order and he said it was the AG's position that the district court order relating to Ms D did not stop her travelling anywhere. In response to a request from the HSE to have the girl psychiatrically examined, the court was told that she was not suicidal. She had said it 'would kill her' to go through with the pregnancy but she said this meant that it would be hugely difficult for her.
A full hearing of the case will take place on Thursday.
Should we want the law to ban abortions in cases like this? Why/why not?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Answer to Rick's Question
Rick writes: "I think Michael might actually have been saying something a *bit* different -- i.e, not so much that the Catechism should inform the 'merits' of the technical question presented but that it should inform a judge's decision about how to vote in cases of genuine, reasonable uncertainty about the legal merits of the question presented. Michael?" That's it, Rick. Thanks!
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
