MOJ friend, St. Thomas law professor, OU law graduate, and candidate for Congress, Teresa Collett reflects here on the misguided notion that equality for women requires that abortion be legal.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Personal Reflection on Abortion and Equality
Friday, January 29, 2010
Ralph McInerny RIP
Our readers might be interested in Joseph Bottum's blog post on Ralph McInerny (1929-2010).
Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, And let perpetual light shine upon him.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Dean John Garvey on Conscience
BC's dean, John Garvey, has this to say on conscience rights in the context of tomorrow's U.S. Senate race in his state.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
"like" and "dislike"
I would very much like to express that I "like" Patrick's "unfriend" post but alas we don't have a "like" option available to our readers. And, since we don't have a comment option, I have to express my "like" in a separate post.
Friday, January 1, 2010
May it not be so in 2010
Wendell Berry once wrote:
Our bodies are fat, weak, joyless, sickly, ugly, the virtual prey of the manufacturers of medicine and cosmetics. Our bodies have become marginal; they are growing useless like our ‘marginal land' because we have less and less use for them. After the games and idle flourishes of modern youth, we use them only as shipping cartons to transport our brains and our few employable muscles back and forth to work.
Here is to healthy bodies, minds, and spirits in 2010.
Happy New Year!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Law and Anthropology
As we ring out the old year (and decade) and ring in the new, I went back and looked at our very early blogs from nearly six years ago. This one, from Rick, still expresses what for me is a core aspect of our project.
One of our shared goals for this blog is to ... "discover[] how our Catholic perspective can inform our understanding of the law." One line of inquiry that, in my view, is particularly promising -- and one that I know several of my colleagues have written and thought about -- involves working through the implications for legal questions of a Catholic "moral anthropology." By "moral anthropology," I mean an account of what it is about the human person that does the work in moral arguments about what we ought or ought not to do and about how we ought or ought not to be treated; I mean, in Pope John Paul II's words, the “moral truth about the human person."
The Psalmist asked, "Lord, what is man . . . that thou makest account of him?” (Ps. 143:3). This is not only a prayer, but a starting point for jurisprudential reflection. All moral problems are anthropological problems, because moral arguments are built, for the most part, on anthropological presuppositions. That is, as Professor Elshtain has put it, our attempts at moral judgment tend to reflect our “foundational assumptions about what it means to be human." Jean Bethke Elshtain, The Dignity of the Human Person and the Idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries, 14 JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION 53, 53 (1999-2000). As my colleague John Coughlin has written, the "anthropological question" is both "perennial" and profound: "What does it mean to be a human being?” Rev. John J. Coughlin, Law and Theology: Reflections on What it Means to Be Human, 74 ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW 609, 609 (2000).
Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Dear Michael P.
I thought that you and Robby had arrived at common ground, agreed to move on, and leave readers to decide for themselves whether either or both of you had engaged in caricature or personal insult. But, now you continue with "as I explained, that 'equivalent to racists' construal of my post was a misconstrual. I can't tell ... whether Robby still adheres to that 'equivalent to racists' misconstrual of my Christmas Eve post."
I can't speak for Robby, but speaking for myself, I take you at your word that you did not mean to equate those who embrace traditional sexual ethics with racists. But, that doesn't get you off the hook since you are responsible for the words you use.
In your Christmas Eve post you said: "Black bonding sexually with white? Yuk! Female bonding sexually with female? Or male with male? Yuk squared!" in the context of your psychosexual analysis of those with "profound aversion" to "unfamiliar modes of human sexuality." How else can this language be construed except as implying that those who embrace traditional sexual ethics are "equivalent to racists"? At the very least, a reasonable reader could construe your words this way.
Since you didn't mean for your words to be construed this way, could you do us the favor of publicly expressing regret over your poor word choice?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Just to be sure I understand...
Communication is difficult, and I thank you, Michael P., for your patience in helping me understand. What I hear you saying is that your theology does not inform your sexual ethics and that your sexual ethics are informed by your understanding of the natural law. Is that correct? If not, what did I miss.
Your Christmas Eve post discusses (if I read that post correctly) what moral theology ought to take seriously in the realm of human sexuality. In your most recent posts you seem to switch from theology to a philosophical position uninformed by theology. Maybe, I am missing something, but that is the source of my confusion.
As for "ideological partisanship," my dear Michael P., you ought to know by now that my emphasis is on "transcend" rather than "liberal" or "conservative" as this has been consistent theme of mine on this blog - where we can transcend these labels and this partisanship, we ought to do so and Cathy has framed some issues that allow quite nicely, as she her says, for us to do just that.
Response to Michael P. and Cathy Kaveny
Michael, thank you for answering the first of my two questions. As for the second, I don't think you answered it. My question remains: “[I]s there a connection between your theology (post-metaphysical, apophatic Catholic/Christian) and your sexual ethics?” I know that that the two positions are not necessarily connected. What I am interested in is whether your theology informs your sexual ethics. And, if so, how?
Michael's mention of Margaret Farley reminds me that Michael P., Amy Uelmen, and I promised to engage in a blog dialogue on Farley's book "Just Love," and we have yet to deliver. I'll get with the two of them and pick a new week for this discussion.
Although her first paragraph detracts from the conversation, Cathy's four points (A-D) seem to me to be a good starting point for those more knowledgable than I to discuss the "new" natural law in a way that transcends the liberal/conservative ideological divide. I know that I for one would benefit greatly from such a discussion. And, the less ideological partisanship, the more I'll learn.
Two questions for Michael P.
Michael P:
Your Christmas Eve post (to which Robby responds here), discusses "the Tradition" and sexual ethics. Two questions. First, does the Tradition (whether Porter/Kaveny or George/Finnis/Grisez are the better heirs to the Tradition) support your post-metaphysical, apophatic Catholic Christianity? In short, do you stand outside the Tradition, even as interpreted by Porter/Kaveny? Second, is there a connection between your theology (post-metaphysical, apophatic Catholic/Christian) and your sexual ethics?
I look forward to your reply.
Merry 5th Day of Christmas,
Michael S.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
