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.

Friday, January 5, 2007

More Rotting in the Church

New York Times
January 5, 2007

Embezzlement Is Found in Many Catholic Dioceses
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and STEPHANIE STROM

A survey by researchers at Villanova University has found that 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses that responded had discovered embezzlement of church money in the last five years, with 11 percent reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen.

The Catholic Church has some of the most rigorous financial guidelines of any denomination, specialists in church ethics said, but the survey found that the guidelines were often ignored in parishes. And when no one is looking, the cash that goes into the collection plate does not always get deposited into the church’s bank account.

“As a faith-based organization, we place a lot of trust in our folks,” said Chuck Zech, a co-author of the study and director of the Center for the Study of Church Management at Villanova.

“We think if you work for a church — you’re a volunteer or a priest — the last thing on your mind is to do something dishonest,” Mr. Zech said. “But people are people, and there’s a lot of temptation there, and with the cash-based aspect of how churches operate, it’s pretty easy.”

Specialists in church ethics said they believed this was the first study to assess the extent of embezzlement in a denomination.

[To read the whole piece, click here.]

Thursday, January 4, 2007

Was Our Government's Treatment of Jose Padilla Immoral?

[From Leiter Reports.   Follow the link below.  Follow this link too.  If the allegations are true, then on what ground, if any, can we decline to conclude that what our government did to Jose Padilla was immoral?]

Objective: incapacitation (Wilson)

It appears that the U.S. government has successfully driven Jose Padilla insane.   

Wednesday, January 3, 2007

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM FOR MILITARY ETHICS

MOJ-friend Chris Eberle (Philosophy, Naval Academy) supplies this information about what promises to be a very interesting symposium.  Take a look, here.

Tuesday, January 2, 2007

Religious Freedom & Native Americans: Which Circuit Got It Right--the 9th or the 10th?

Sightings  1/1/07

Even Where Eagles Fly
-- Martin E. Marty

Weary as we have a right to be after the wearying December Wars that pit one kind of Christian versus all kinds of everyone else, or after ringing the latest changes on Muslim-Christian and everyone-else issues, let's turn away and lift our eyes, which means to do our "sighting" high above such conflicts and issues.  We can take a day, or a week, off and train our eyes on soaring eagles, thus escaping such mundane things as church-state rulings and contentions.

Fat chance.  We can't evade such issues merely by scanning the horizons and clouds and cliffs where eagles fly and land.  "Church and state" battles are not to be evaded or avoided.  Here's an illustration, described by Wyoming author Brodie Farquhar in one of my favorites, High Country News.  We are told of a Northern Arapaho named Winslow W. Friday, who violated the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act by shooting a bald eagle on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming.  Don't think that aeries are far from the world of dockets and the long reach of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, followed by conflicting 9th and 10th Circuit Court rulings.

Stick to your subject, Sightings, the subject being religion.  Well, we are sticking to it, the eagles being sacred and their feathers necessary for religious rituals of the Northern Arapaho, and protecting them being sacred to the Wildlife Protection people.  A Hopi, Berra Neil Tawahongva, spiritual kin to Winslow Friday, last August killed a golden eagle but did not convince the 9th Circuit Court that needing to get a permit to kill the bird violated the "free exercise of religion" clause in his case.  The judge: "It is clear to this Court that the Government has no intention of accommodating the religious beliefs of Native Americans except on the law's own terms and in its own good time."

Over against it, a 10th Circuit Court ruling wants to add emphasis to "the sanctity of the Sun Dance and the obligation of the Arapaho people to nurture our sacred ceremonies for generations."  The Arapaho say they will not endanger the survival of the eagles, which "the Creator gave ... to the Arapaho.  We want more eagles.  We want them to flourish."  Some picture that the conflict of court rulings will destine this to a Supreme Court future, while others think not.  Some dream of compromise of the sort worked out by some tribes who are given some wounded eagles, and then breed them for feathers.  The Arapaho say that feathers alone won't do; for some religious rites they need the whole bird.

We bring this up here not to side with the 9th versus the 10th Circuit Courts, or the "whole bird" versus the "single feather" tribes, or the hunters versus the breeders, the "don't cares" versus the "cares," the American Indians versus the others, or any other versuses.  Instead, this instance shows once again that to be born into the realm of civil law, which is everywhere, is to be planted, individually or in a tribe, in a place that can create issues when realizing that one is also born into a realm where the transcendent is honored.

This is a way of saying that we will not reach a moment in a free society wherein church-state or religion-and-regime issues will be resolved.  It is also a way of saying that changes of scenery and venues for conflict can be both refreshing and plaguing.

References:
"Tribal religion trumps eagle protection" (High Country News, November 13, 2006) by Brodie Farquhar ([email protected]) can be read at: http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=16679.

----------

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

Monday, January 1, 2007

An Irish Comment on a Salvadoran Sentence

[MOJ-friend--and Trinity College Dublin law prof--Gerry Whyte responds to these posts:  here and here:]

Reading today’s MOJ, I came across the item about El Salvador and the questionable reporting of a case by the New York Times magazine. While I understand that the thrust of the item is about the obligation on reporters to check facts, what struck me about the case was the fact that a woman guilty of what we would call infanticide was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. From time to time, new born infants are found dead in this country but the authorities always proceed with great sensitivity towards the mother and prosecutions are rarely taken. (Back in the 1980s, there was a controversial case in Co. Kerry that achieved notoriety and resulted in a public inquiry but that was controversial because of the manner in which the police investigated the case, not because of the fact that a newborn infant was found dead.) Now it may be that the Irish cases are entirely cases of abandonment and not deliberate killing, so that the Irish response might not be directly comparable to that of the authorities in El Salvador.  Nonetheless, isn’t thirty years for infanticide somewhat harsh, given that in the immediate aftermath of childbirth, the mother might not be fully responsible for her actions?

Sunday, December 31, 2006

The Execution of Saddam Hussein

Here are two competing Catholic perspectives.

Which one, dear reader, if either, do you find persuasive:

StephenBainbridge.com

Evangelical Catholicism

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Res Ipsa Loquitur (With a Vengeance)!

[For previous posts:  here and here.]

New York Times
December 23, 2006

Italy: Church Funeral Denied in Right-To-Die Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS   

The Roman Catholic Church denied a religious funeral for Piergiorgio Welby, the muscular dystrophy patient at the center of a debate on euthanasia who died this week after a doctor disconnected his respirator, saying it would treat his public wish to “end his life” as a willful suicide. In his high-profile case, Mr. Welby had said he was not seeking to commit suicide but to remove himself from medical treatment he did not want. His widow, Mina, who defended the doctor’s decision, said the family would hold a lay funeral for him tomorrow. The family said they learned of the Rome Diocese’s decision to withhold a religious funeral when they tried to make arrangements with their local parish. “I won’t deny that I was furious,” said his sister, Carla. She said the decision would be hard for her mother. “I don’t know with what words we will tell her that she can’t hold a funeral for her son in church,” she said. The church opposes euthanasia. In many apparent suicides, it allows funerals on the assumption that the deceased was not of sound mind. The office of the Vicar of Rome said it had refused a funeral for Mr. Welby because of his “repeated and publicly affirmed” desire to “end his life.”

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Followup to Yesterday's Post

[For yesterday's post, click here.]

New York Times
December 21, 2006

Italian in Euthanasia Debate Dies
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS  

ROME (AP) -- A paralyzed man at the center of a right-to-die debate in this overwhelmingly Roman Catholic nation died after he was taken off his respirator, days after an Italian court issued a contentious ruling in the case.

Piergiorgio Welby, 60, died late Wednesday of cardiorespiratory arrest, said Mario Riccio, the doctor who removed the respirator. Riccio said Thursday that Welby had a constitutionally guaranteed right to refuse treatment.

''This must not be mistaken for euthanasia. It is a suspension of therapies,'' said Riccio. ''Refusing treatment is a right.''

Riccio said he was ''very serene'' and did not fear legal consequences.

According to Italian law, assisted suicide can carry a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.

Welby had been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy as a teenager. He was confined to a bed, attached to a respirator and communicated through a voice synthesizer. He was receiving nourishment through a feeding tube.

On Saturday, a Rome judge recognized Welby's right to refuse treatment but ruled that doctors were not obligated to take measures that would result in the patient's death -- even at the patient's request. The ruling urged legislators to address the issue, saying that for the moment the decision to pull the plug ''is left to the complete discretion of any doctor to whom the request is made.''

The case divided doctors and politicians and gripped the public's attention in a country where the Catholic church still wields influence.

Euthanasia is illegal in Italy, and the Vatican forbids the practice, insisting that life must be safeguarded from its beginning to its ''natural'' end.

In the past few months, Welby had made a plea to Italy's president, and appealed to Italian courts to have his respirator taken away.

''My dream ... my desire, my request -- which I want to put to any authority, from political to judicial ones -- is today in my mind more clear and precise than ever: being able to obtain euthanasia,'' Welby said in his appeal this fall to President Giorgio Napolitano.

In another setback for Welby, a panel of Italian medical experts, the Higher Health Council, said Wednesday that a respirator does not constitute ''extraordinary means'' of keeping a gravely or terminally ill person alive and so need not be removed. The panel, whose opinion is not binding, also decided that precise guidelines for doctors were needed urgently to spell out what the law allows and what it does not.

U.S. law generally permits patients to ask that medical treatment be withheld or withdrawn, even if it raises their risk of dying. Voters in Oregon went further and approved the first physician-assisted suicide law in the U.S. in 1994, but it is now under legal challenge.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

What Should the Law Be for a Case Like This?

New York Times
December 20, 2006

A Poet Crusades for the Right to Die His Way

ROME, Dec. 19 — Many patients on respirators are not conscious and so cannot say whether they want to live or die. But Piergiorgio Welby is still full of words, hard and touching ones, that may be changing the way Italy thinks about euthanasia and other choices for the sick to end their own lives.

“I love life, Mr. President,” Mr. Welby, 60, who has battled muscular dystrophy for 40 years, wrote to Italy’s president, Giorgio Napolitano, in September. “Life is the woman who loves you, the wind through your hair, the sun on your face, an evening stroll with a friend.

“Life is also a woman who leaves you, a rainy day, a friend who deceives you. I am neither melancholic nor manic-depressive. I find the idea of dying horrible. But what is left to me is no longer a life.”

Now Mr. Welby’s long drama appears to be nearing its final act. Last weekend, an Italian court denied legal permission for a doctor to sedate him and remove him from his respirator. Fully lucid but losing his capacity to speak and eat, he is deciding whether to appeal or to perform an act of civil disobedience that will kill him.

He is doing so in a very public way. Until a recent steep decline in his condition, he used a little stick to rapidly peck out blog entries with one hand. His book, “Let Me Die,” was just released. Near daily front-page stories chronicle the political, ethical and, with the Catholic Church a vital force here, religious issues his case presents.

“Dear Welby: Wait Before Taking Yourself Off” the respirator, read a front-page headline on Tuesday in La Repubblica, written by a top Italian surgeon, Dr. Ignazio Marino, who is also a senator for the Democrats of the Left. He had visited Mr. Welby the day before.

What has given the case a particular political twist is that Mr. Welby, attached to a respirator for nine years, has long been a spokesman for euthanasia and is a central part of the Radical Party’s effort to have it legalized. In fact, members of the Radical Party have offered to personally remove his respirator if asked — and may do so any day now in a frontal challenge to Italian law.

But the Catholic Church and many of this traditionally minded nation’s politicians on the left and the right not only oppose euthanasia generally but are also not entirely sure what to do about Mr. Welby’s case. He says he is not seeking to commit suicide but to remove himself from medical treatment he does not want.

“It is an unbearable torture,” he wrote two weeks ago.

To decline forced medical treatment is allowed under Italian law, experts say, but Italy has another law that makes it a crime to assist in a death, even with consent. So a doctor could not detach the respirator without risking prosecution.

The church, too, has conflicting teachings about what to do in this case, and what the Vatican thinks has a deep impact not only on the nation’s political class but also on doctors tied to the scores of Catholic-run hospitals around Italy.

The defense of life is central to the social doctrine of the church, and so it opposes abortion and capital punishment. Only last week Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed his opposition to euthanasia, saying governments should find ways to let the terminally ill “face death with dignity.”

The church also opposes medical treatments to artificially prolong life, but several church officials have worried recently that ending artificial life support could result in de facto euthanasia.

“The problem is to know if we find ourselves truly in front of a case of an artificial prolonging of life,” Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, the Vatican’s top official for health, said in a recent interview with La Repubblica.

Seeing the church as one major obstacle to dying as he wants to, Mr. Welby, a poet and prolific writer, has had little patience with the Vatican’s argument for a “natural end” to life.

“What is natural about a hole in the belly and a pump that fills it with fats and proteins?” he wrote in his letter to the president. The letter was delivered with a video of Mr. Welby in his bed at his home in Rome attached in silence to the respirator, with a laptop at his bedside reading his words in a spooky synthesized voice.

“What is natural about a hole in the windpipe and a pump that blows air into the lungs?” he wrote. “What is natural about a body kept biologically functional with the help of artificial respirators, artificial feed, artificial hydration, artificial intestinal emptying, of death artificially postponed?”

{There is more.  To read on, click here.]

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Unpublished Litany
Thomas Merton

It yawns at me the cavernous gulf.
Find, find the nuns and make them pray.
De ore Leonis, libera nos Domine; and
  again, De manu canis unicam meam.
Hand of the dog reaching out
  from under fur, lousy false dog.
What is to be done?
Miserere.

All the goats, all the dogs, all the
  blank cattle, all the brute cattle, all
  the horned cattle, all the snarl,
all the fake,
all the bellow,
all the monster,
one horn, one man's foot,
one beast's claw, one hen's eye,
one yak's tooth,
one of everything mister,
one of everything.

These are my opinions of today's cosmos.
St. Giles, defend
us.