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, April 19, 2006

William Sloane Coffin Jr., R.I.P.

Sightings  4/17/06

Remembering William Sloane Coffin
-- Martin E. Marty

Where are the Bill Coffins of today?  That question comes up in most reflective comments on the death of William Sloane Coffin, Jr., the most celebrated and charismatic liberal Protestant preacher of the last half-century.  Not long ago we responded to major secular figures who were asking, "Where are the Reinhold Niebuhrs of today?" as they recalled the gifts and influence of the most noted twentieth-century Protestant theologian.  Catholics and Jews ask, "Where are the John Courtney Murrays and Abraham Joshua Heschels?" -- top thinkers and doers of a few decades ago.  Where are the Martin Luther Kings of today?  One of these years there will be obituaries for Billy Graham, and though the TV screens offer arrays of evangelists, we will be asking, "Where are the Billy Grahams of today?"

Note that the question is always in the plural: Coffins, Niebuhrs (though there were two of them!), Murrays, Heschels, Kings, Grahams -- as if each had not been unique, as if there were multiples made from their mold.  There weren't.  And note that none of them had been anticipated.  When Coffin emerged in the 1960's, no liberal Protestant preacher had been nationally acclaimed since Harry Emerson Fosdick, titan in the twenties.  The Niebuhrs came on the scene decades after any Protestant theologian had been a celebrity.  Name one between Walter Rauschenbush, pre-World War I, and the Niebuhrs.  Who, Catholic or not, paid any attention to any Catholic theologian in the half-century before Murray?  And Heschel?  Maybe Jews knew of antecedents, but the wider public did not.  Not at all.  I'm old enough to remember the emergence of all these, including Graham.  We all thought that Billy Sunday in the 1920's had ended, had killed off, the possibilities for urban evangelism.  Then came Billy Graham.

These questions about "Where are the ...?" are legitimate and can be thoughtful and probing.  Some show awareness of context and changed agendas, and are not all moved by nostalgia for mythic figures who themselves once had enough trouble forming constituencies, clienteles, audiences, and congregations when they came on the scene.  Maybe some mix of genes and circumstances assured that there were "giants in the earth in those days."  But the world, the nation, and its religious agencies have moved on, and one cannot recreate the circumstances that made them credible and offered them a hearing.

The better question, since issues as large as theirs are with us now, is: How do we, as a nation and in religious sectors, summon energies, inspiration, resources, will, and potential constituencies so new sets and types of leaders with new tactics and messages can emerge?  Even as we ask, we are allowed this week, at least, first to join the rememberers and the nostalgic in noting the loss so many of us feel as friend Coffin departs the scene.  The Martys got to say goodbye personally to Bill in Vermont a year ago October, but he kept saying hello anew in books, writings, sermons, mumbles, witticisms, proclamations of the gospel, moral nudges, and even breaths and gasps.  My hunch is that he will still do his gospelling posthumously.

But we are allowed to miss him, to really miss him, and, if we share the faith, to thank God for his presence and hope for whatever kinds of truth-telling leadership may emerge.

----------

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

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Rick Garnett v. Robby George

Rick posted below Robby George's thoughts on capital punishment, and then indicated that he was inclined to disagree with Robby's reading of Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (here).  I have virtually conclusive proof that Robby is right and Rick is wrong:   I concur in Robby's readings of the documents, and if Robby George and I actually find ourselves in agreement about something, well, res ipsa loquitur and all that.  (Of course, when Robby finds out that I agree with him about his reading of the documents, he may want to reconsider his reading of the documents ...)
_______________
mp

Stanley Fish on Antonin Scalia on constitutional interpretation

Stanley Fish is guest blogging at the New York Times.  Here are two posts on Antonin Scalia that I thought some MOJ-readers would be interested in:  Fish on Scalia.
_______________
mp

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Contraception & Catholicity. God Help Us!

The Tablet [London]
April 1, 2006
 

‘Now, it seems, contraception has become the acid test of Catholicity’

Clifford Longley

Judging by what he has said on the subject, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O¹Connor of Westminster must agree with the recent statement of Cardinal Godfreid Daneels of Brussels that a married man with HIV-Aids must use a condom when he has sexual relations with his wife. Otherwise, Cardinal Daneels explained, he is putting her life at risk.

This issue may have reminded Cardinal Murphy-O¹Connor of one of the arguments put forward against the absolute ban on artificial birth control that Pope Paul VI announced in his encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968. The question was asked: what if doctors had declared that a woman¹s life would be in danger if she got pregnant again? Wouldn¹t the use of a condom or some other reliable birth control method be essential, if the husband was not to put his wife¹s life at risk? The answer was clear: Pope Paul VI¹s ruling applied even in this extreme situation. If periodic abstinence from sex was not reliable, they must abstain altogether.

This is deep water, about to get deeper. Let us suppose a man and his wife are patients of a GP in London who has opened an NHS clinic at the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth. According to a recent statement by Cardinal Murphy-O¹Connor, who has responsibility in these matters in respect of this celebrated Catholic hospital, doctors at St John and St Elizabeth (whether Catholic or not) treating patients (whether Catholic or not) must abide by a code of ethics in line with Catholic teaching. Hence ³referrals for direct abortion, for amniocentesis for purposes other than safe delivery, and for contraception, and to prescribing with contraceptive intent, particularly when what is prescribed is or may be abortifacient (e.g. by impeding implantation)² are not permitted. (En passant, if something is forbidden in all circumstances, what is added by the phrase ³particularly when ...²?)

If one partner in a marriage has HIV-Aids and they ask for medical advice, must they be advised by their GP at St John and St Elizabeth that they are forbidden to use contraceptives? Or must they be warned that they have an obligation to do so? And what about the next pair in the waiting room, a couple who want to know whether they can use contraceptives because they have been told that another pregnancy would endanger the woman¹s life? Would it be a good idea for one of them to go out and get Aids? And what kind of tortuous moral gymnastics does it take to say yes to the first case, and no to the second?

I was disappointed to find the reference to contraception in the cardinal¹s statement concerning the St John and St Elizabeth hospital. I hoped we had long since got over that hurdle. Indeed, we seemed to get over it the day in 1968 that Bishop Derek Worlock pronounced his famous remark: ³birth control is not the acid test of Christianity². He was trying to calm down a substantial rebellion against Humanae Vitae among the Catholic laity. His secretary at the time was Fr Cormac Murphy-O¹Connor.

As a result the Catholic community settled into a harmonious ³agreement to disagree². The laity tacitly agreed not to push too far in one direction, and the bishops agreed not to push too far in the other. There were to be no ³acid tests² on the issue, either way. But now, in order to safeguard St John and St Elizabeth¹s Catholic identity, it seems contraception has indeed become the acid test of Catholicity.

Let us put the matter another way. If an intention to dispense birth control advice is a critical disqualification from practising medicine in a Catholic context, then certain conclusions follow. It must be a great evil. If so, it must be dug out root and branch, at whatever cost. The bishops have to break their tacit silence on the subject and issue a forthright and unequivocal declaration to the effect that the use of contraceptives is a mortal sin, leaving the sinner liable to eternal damnation if unrepentant and requiring both sacramental confession and a promise never to do it again before the individual may receive Holy Communion; and order it to be read in all the churches under their command. And they have to say that priests who are not prepared to apply the letter of the law have no further place in the priesthood.

Such a declaration would of course reduce, at a stroke, the Mass attendance figures by three-quarters, as Catholics drowned out their bishops¹ words by voting with their feet. But who cares what they think? If Catholic truth is at stake, what are mere numbers?
_______________
mp


Monday, April 10, 2006

Garry Wills on Jesus and Politics

Garry Wills has followed up his new book, What Jesus Meant, with an op-ed that has already been commented on here.  The reflection below, by Martin Marty, may be of interest to some MOJ-readers.

Sightings  4/10/06

Wills's Jesus
-- Martin E. Marty

"Jesus, Jesus and More Jesus ... Jesus is all the rage in the media these days," writes Lynn Garrett in
Publishers Weekly Religion BookLine.  She's right.  You can save time by reading Garry Wills's terse What Jesus Meant, a typical Willsian "makes you think" book; you can then skip the new Gnostic "Gospel of Judas," the search for the "real" historical Jesus, all of the Jesus-as-nice-guy sentimentalities, "gentle Jesus meek and mild," the Da Vinci Code fictions, and Thomas Jefferson's snippets that show Jesus as a moralist.
 
Wills is Roman Catholic, though more Catholic than Roman.  He is devoted to orthodox Catholic faith in Jesus the Resurrected One, to be celebrated this Sunday.  Sticking with the gospels, he finds no trace of anything that founds or backs the Roman or any other hierarchy in those four little openers to the New Testament.  (Those who unwisely do not want to spend the time to read his 143-page Easter card, What Jesus Meant, can get the gist in his condensation, "What Jesus Did," in the Spring issue of The American Scholar.)  Formal biblical critical scholars may consider his confidence in the four gospels to be historically naive -- being naive has rarely been a charge against Wills! -- but he takes them as the only words about Jesus that the church, through the ages, has read and heard to make up its mind about Jesus as the Christ of faith; and, with the letters of the apostle Paul, they are the really challenging texts.

What did Jesus say and do?  Nothing that would please the WWJD -- "What Would Jesus Do?" -- crowd.  If their likes favor what gets advertised as "family values," they won't find a line of support: Jesus was announcing the Kingdom of God, not the family.  If others want to join the "New Fundamentalists," the liberal-radical Jesus Seminar scholars who vote for the few "authentic" sayings of Jesus, they will be cutting Jesus to fit their size and side in the culture wars.

Some of them might think Wills is doing the same, but I think he'd like them to check him out with the four gospel texts before dismissing him.  The gospel texts are out to show that "Jesus is not just like us, that he has higher rights and powers."  "He was called a bastard and was rejected by his own brothers and the rest of his family.  He was an outcast among outcasts, ... homeless ....  He especially depended on women, who were 'second-class citizens' ....  His very presence was subversive ....  He was in constant danger ... called an agent of the devil, ... never respectable ... scandalous."  Jefferson and others looked in the gospels for "diamonds in the dunghill," but Wills thinks their efforts would end "like finding New York City at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean."

These are two different worlds.  Wills's apostle Paul did not corrupt the Jesus of the gospels; he wrote a generation before they were put together, and his belief in the power of the resurrected Lord Jesus is what spread among those who kept the stories and sayings of Jesus alive.  "The gospels express the ineffable in the language appropriate for the task, a language inherited from the Jewish scriptures," leaving a "task for faith, a reasoning faith," but "faith all the same."

Christians call this Holy Week.  The book is well timed for them and it.

For Further Reading:
See the Spring issue of The American Scholar for Gary Wills's article "What Jesus Did."  Single issues are $9.00.  Check your library, or order it from [email protected].

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at
www.illuminos.com.

----------

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

Saturday, March 25, 2006

What a delight ...

... to have been with (among others) my fellow MOJ-bloggers at St. John's yesterday and the day before to discuss The Jurisprudential Legacy of John Paul II:  Robert Araujo, Mike Scaperlanda, Greg Sisk, Susan Stabile, Amy Uelman, and Rob Vischer (and fellow travelers like Lisa Schiltz).  It was a pleasure to be among you!  Thanks so much to Susan Stabile and Michael Simons for organizing and hosting the symposium--and to Rob Vischer for having the inspired idea for the symposium.  And congrats to all for a wonderfully successul gathering.

For those of you who couldn't be there:  The papers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies.
_______________
mp          

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Buckley v. Mahony

[This is from dot.Commonweal:]

William F. Buckley vs. Cardinal Mahony

March 21, 2006, 11:43 pm

Look at the Right go. Yet another salvo from the National Review shot across the bow of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Buckley's conclusion is worth quoting in toto:

President Bush endorsed the House bill and asks the Senate to act on it. He hardly understands himself to be rejecting the canon of Christian behavior towards our fellow men by making the point that free and independent societies have the right to prescribe immigration codes, and need especially to reject such distortions of Christian dogma and practice as invite the wrong kind of attention to appropriate divisions between church and state.


It strikes me as a stretch to suggest that Cardinal Mahony's call for civil disobedience, should the bits of HR 4437 he finds objectionable be signed into law, is meant as an attack on the right of "free and independent societies...to prescribe immigration code." Likewise, no bishops have intimated that President Bush "understands himself to be rejecting the canon of Christian behavior towards our fellow men." The whole canon? Bit much. The concern, I think, is just the part about the works of mercy.

But I should let the cardinal speak for himself.

by Grant Gallicho
_______________
mp

When Does An Individual Human Being Begin?

Commonweal
March 24, 2006

When Does Life Begin?

TWO PROLIFE PHILOSOPHERS DISAGREE

Cathleen Kaveny

[Cathleen Kaveny teaches law and theology at the University of Notre Dame.]

My esteemed Notre Dame colleague, John Finnis, will receive the third annual Paul Ramsey Award for Excellence in Bioethics from the Center for Bioethics and Culture (CBC), a conservative Christian think tank. Paul Ramsey (1913-88) was a pioneer in the field of bioethics. He was also one of my teachers at Princeton. I wonder whether the CBC would consider Ramsey himself suitable for the award it issues in his name? Firmly prolife, Ramsey still considered some questions-such as the status of the early human embryo-to be legitimately debatable by committed Christians. I’m not sure the CBC feels the same way. The chair of its nominating committee, C. Ben Mitchel, has said that denying that the early embryo is a human being is analogous to denying the humanity of Jews and slaves. Would Paul Ramsey agree?

I don’t think so. In fact, Ramsey had serious reservations about the position that individual human life starts at fertilization-an opinion Finnis shares with the worthy previous recipients of the Ramsey Award, Germain Grisez and Edmund Pellegrino-both Catholics. In Ramsey’s classic and wide-ranging essay “Abortion: A Review Article” (The Thomist, 1973), he engages in vigorous, detailed, and still-relevant debate with Grisez’s Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, the Arguments (1970).

In that book, Grisez argues that individual human life begins when egg and sperm unite, creating a fertilized ovum (a zygote) with a full complement of forty-six chromosomes. That zygote then undergoes cell division, becoming an embryo. But there is a wrinkle to the argument: for about two weeks after fertilization, that embryo may split, resulting in identical twins. Less commonly, two embryos may combine, resulting in one individual. As Ramsey notes, “there is fluidity and indeterminacy in either direction during the earliest days following conception.” So how do we think about the various entities involved in twinning and combination?

In the case of twinning, Grisez argues, we must think in terms of three distinct human individuals. The original embryo-let’s call it A-is a human individual distinct from its parents. The twins-let’s call them B and C-are human individuals distinct from each other and from the fertilized egg from which they sprang. What is the relationship among A, B, and C? Grisez explains that “we should think of the twins as the grandchildren of their putative parents, the individual that divided being the true offspring, and the identical twins of that offspring by atypical reproduction.” In other words, A is the child of the parents, and B and C are the grandchildren. This is odd, since A neither died nor gave birth. Rather, A split through a form of asexual reproduction. Grisez likens the split to the way in which “two individual animals of many lower forms of life can develop by the division of a single, existing individual.” In his article, Ramsey conjectures, with a note of incredulity, that Grisez must be talking about halved earthworms.

What about two embryos combining to form one? Grisez says this involves two individuals, A and B, combining to form C, who is a distinct new individual. He suggests this scenario is analogous to that of “a grafted plant.” Ramsey’s response: “With considerable astonishment we may ask whether any such ‘individuality’ is the life we should respect and protect from conception. In trying to prove too much, Grisez has proved too little of ethical import.”

Analogies to earthworms and plants seemed implausible to Ramsey. So did Grisez’s invitation to think of identical twins as the grandchildren of the woman who gave birth to them. Grisez’s attempt to preserve the claim that individuated human life begins at fertilization sacrifices too much of what we know about human nature-both from a Christian perspective and a scientific one. After all, human beings reproduce sexually, not asexually. Humans are mortal; they die and their bodies disintegrate. They don’t split neatly into two with no loss, cost, or remainder (as in twinning), nor do they merge fluidly into one another (as in combination).

Ramsey thought it plausible that an individuated human life does not begin until the possibility for twinning and combination has passed, a stage called restriction, about two weeks after fertilization. Assuming Ramsey was right, what does that mean for research on human embryos that destroys them in the process? If the embryos have not reached the stage of restriction, such research would not count as homicide, because it wouldn’t involve killing a human being.

If it’s not homicide, is such research morally permissible? Perhaps, given its potential benefits. But not necessarily. Ramsey was deeply suspicious of the scientific imperative to manipulate human destiny in the name of progress. He was keenly aware of the slippery slope such research puts us on. Should the research prove effective, the inevitable temptation will be to use more developed embryos and even fetuses in our research to get better results. On his view, that would be homicide.

Paul Ramsey’s powerful and fearless intellect led him to differ not only from secular liberals, but also from religious conservatives. If the CBC issues an award in his name, its leaders ought to refrain from demonizing as Nazis or slaveholders those who hold positions that Ramsey himself considered defensible.
_______________
mp

Sunday, March 19, 2006

from Commonweal.com

This post is by Peggy Steinfels, former editor of Commonweal:

What's a magazine for?

March 19, 2006, 3:40 pm

I wonder if you'all saw this item in this week's Word From Rome: John Allen interviews the Jesuit General  Hans-Peter Kolvenbach. Among Allen's questions and Kolvenbach's responses are the following.

Allen: One early controversy of his papacy centered on Fr. Tom Reese from America magazine. What are the lessons of that episode for Jesuit-sponsored publications?

Kolvenbach: America magazine, under the competent and dynamic guidance of Fr. Tom Reese, believed that the best service to a mature Catholic public was to let the two sides of a controversial question to defend their views. … However, this orientation did not meet the approval of some pastorally concerned priests who were worried about a negative effect on the faith-growth of the Catholics. They expect that Jesuit publications will offer clear standings to meet the questions of the day, avoiding confusion and relativism. Unhappily, instead of changing his policy, Fr. Reese resigned. This episode takes us back to St. Ignatius when he speaks about sentire cum ecclesia (feeling with the church). …

Allen: Did the initial concerns about America come from the United States rather than the Vatican?

Kolvenbach? Yes, from clergy outside the Jesuits in the United States, including some in senior positions.

Steinfels: Most issues have three or four sides, not just two. How can the Catholic church and its tradition have a credible presence in U.S. culture if it can't even talk about two sides of a controversy, much less three or four.

America has, in fact, held up well under its new editor, but if the head of the Jesuits and other senior clergy, i.e., U.S. cardinals and bishops, think that debate and contestation are not among the tasks of Catholic journals and intellecutals, they're heads are deeper in the sand than I believed possible. Not to toot Commonweal's horn,  or NCR's, but there is considerable virtue in publications that are willing and able to grapple with the dark issues of the day by presenting more than one side of an issue precisely because they know there are mature Catholics reading their pages.

More than liberals or conservatives, what the Catholic church needs are wirters, editors, intelllectuals who make it their business to sustain a credible Catholicism.
_______________
mp

One of those "religion in politics" moments ...

[From an e-mail message I received:]

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.  You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.
_______________
mp