Thanks Michael P. for citing to a review of a book of essays on Margaret Farley's book "Just Love," It reminds me that I am very much looking forward to our dialogue (blog symposium) on Margaret Farley's book this summer.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Just Love, the Dialogue
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Ash Wednesday
I wish all of you a blessed and fruitful Lent. I have been particularly struck by this phrase in today's second reading (from 2:Cor 5:20-6:2). "[I]n him [Jesus] we might become the very holiness of God." May it be so!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Nothing New Under the Sun: A Response to Eduardo in 2006
Despite the fact that Eduardo continues to criticize the rhetoric, analogies, and comparisons of pro-lifers (suggesting that we really don't believe in the equal dignity and worth of every human being regardless of stage of development and capacity), he has yet to defend - so far as I can tell - the position that some human beings have less worth and dignity than others.
In a September 29, 2006 post, Eduardo acknowledges that embryos have human status "(in some sense)" and quotes a reader saying "no amount of rhetoric can bridge the ontological chasm between the person enslaved and a fetus." In response, Robert George invited him to clarify and defend his position nearly two and a half years ago in this post October 3, 2006 on the First Things blog:
[L]et us get to the heart of the matter in dispute. Either Eduardo Peñalver believes that human embryos are human beings or he does not.
Either he believes that every human being–irrespective of age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency—possesses profound, inherent, and equal dignity or he does not.
The first question is a scientific one, and the answer to it is clear. The evidence, attested to unanimously by the major embryological texts used in contemporary anatomy and medicine, is overwhelming. From the zygote stage forward there is a complete, distinct, individual member of the species Homo sapiens who, by directing his or her own integral organic functioning, will (assuming adequate nutrition, a suitable environment, and decent health) develop himself or herself toward the more mature stages of human development.
The second question is philosophical. Do we possess dignity and a right to life by virtue of the kind of entity we are, namely, a human being—the one type of bodily creature known to us who has a rational nature? Or is dignity something we possess only by virtue of our acquisition or realization of certain qualities (immediately exercisable capacities) that human beings in certain stages and conditions possess (or exhibit) and others do not, and that some possess in greater measure than others, e.g., self-awareness, consciousness, rationality? If the latter, then not all human beings are “persons” with rights. There are certain classes of human nonpersons: pre-personal human beings (embryos, fetuses); post-personal human beings (those in minimally conscious states, those who have been afflicted by dementias); and those who (due to severe congenital retardation) are not, never were, and never will be “persons.”
The Catholic position (shared by many Protestants, Jews, people of other faiths, and people of no religious affiliation, and philosophically defensible even apart from revelation) is that every human being, irrespective of age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency, possesses profound, inherent, and equal dignity and a basic right to life. There are no classes of superiors and inferiors. There are no “human nonpersons.” If Professor Peñalver doesn’t believe this, then he should clearly say so. …
Peñalver seems to have been throwing us hints in his recent postings. [In his Sept. 29 MOJ post, he refers] to the status of the embryo being “human” merely “in some sense.” … In fact, we know precisely the sense in which human embryos are human: They are distinct living members of the species Homo sapiens who, unless denied or deprived of what any other human being requires, namely, adequate nutrition and an hospitable environment, develop by internal self-direction along the gapless continuum of a human life. The adult human being who is now, say, Eduardo Peñalver, is the same individual, the same human being, who earlier in his life was an adolescent, a child, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. By directing his own integral organic functioning, Eduardo developed from the embryonic stage of his life into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages, and into adulthood with his distinctness, unity, determinateness, and identity intact. To have destroyed the human being who is Eduardo at any stage of his life would have been to destroy Eduardo.
But perhaps Professor Peñalver thinks that he lacked dignity and right to life in the embryonic and fetal stages of his development. Perhaps he supposes that he acquired them later. Sophisticated arguments for distinguishing putatively “pre-personal” (and “post-personal”) human beings from “persons” have been advanced by a number of people. Some of them, like Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, and Jonathan Glover, are willing to live with the logical implications of their position by endorsing the morality of infanticide. …
I invite Professor Peñalver, if he [believes that there is an ontological chasm between the person enslaved and the fetus], to give us a philosophical account of the “chasm” that allegedly exists between human beings in early developmental stages and those at later stages of maturity. Given the remarkable assertion that the alleged chasm is ontological, it would be good to know what evidence he would adduce to establish what seems on the basis of the embryological facts to be patently false, namely, that embryos differ in kind from infants, adolescents, or adult humans. If Peñalver is prepared to propose the ontological division of humanity into classes, some fully human and others merely human “in some sense,” I would be curious to see if in fashioning the argument he would do as well as the pro-slavery philosophers and theologians of the antebellum period—some of whom, as Eugene Genovese has shown, were very sophisticated indeed. There are equally sophisticated writers today—such as Singer, Tooley, and Glover—who are willing, as I mentioned, to distinguish pre- and post-personal human beings from human persons. But they do not pretend that such distinctions can be made compatible with the sanctity-of-life principles of the Catholic Church and the broader Western philosophical tradition. Indeed, they are tenacious critics of the Church’s (and tradition’s) basic stand. I do not suspect that their work will be of much use to Peñalver in defending an “ontological chasm.”
HT: Robert George
Saturday, February 14, 2009
"Unhinged Abortion Rhetoric" and the State
Michael P. links to Eduardo's "Democracy and Abortion" post at dotCommonweal. Setting aside the question of whether using certain rhetoric, analogies, or comparisons is prudent or not in a given setting, Eduardo continues to attempt to dodge the central reality of the unborn's humanity by suggesting that if the pro-life movement really believed that abortion in America was the state sanctioned taking of an innocent human life, a bloody civil war would be justified against an illegitimate regime. Since most pro-lifers don't advocate a bloody civil war, Eduardo concludes that talk of abortion as murder - or as "a form of mass-murder" - is "mostly just that - talk."
What I hear in this post and others from Eduardo and pro-abortion rights advocates is "hey, pro-lifers, put up or shut up. If you really believe abortion is murder or the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then you must take action. And, if you really believe your own rhetoric, then you must work to ban all abortion. If the state won't bend, then you must attempt to overthrow the regime, by violence if necessary. If you are unwilling to do this, then shut up because you don't truly believe your own rhetoric. We the pro-choicers can dismiss you because you're just just talk."
This is an interesting rhetorical strategy for pro-abortion rights advocates to take. Instead of trying to persuade the persuadable that the pro-choice position is more reasonable than the pro-life position, the strategy is to avoid the question of the justness of abortion by telling the uncommitted person "don't go with the pro-lifers because they don't really believe their own talk; if they did they'd be taking up arms."
I don't think pro-lifers need to defend not taking up arms against the U.S. any more than non-violent abolitionists needed to defend not taking up arms against the U.S. in the period before the Civil War, or anymore than Karol Wojtyla needed to defend not taking up arms against the communist government in Poland, or anymore than Chinese Christians (and others) need to defend not taking up arms against their Communist government, or anymore than the the Jews needed to defend not taking up arms against the Roman occupation.
There are many ways of working to eradicate evil in our midst. That we don't advocate the most violent (and probably the most futile and wreckless) doesn't make us any less true believers in the cause to protect the unborn. Although Eduardo might find the rhetoric immoderate, abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Instead of criticising the rhetoric, analogies, and comparisons of pro-lifers, I'd hope Eduardo and others in his camp would tell us why the state is justified in authorizing private parties to take innocent human life.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
4th Annual Edith Stein Conference at Notre Dame, Feb. 13-14
The 4th Annual Edith Stein Conference will be held at Notre Dame Feb. 13-14. The conference title this year is "Love: What Hurts and What Works? Engaging Self, Society and God." News about the conference and a link to the conference schedule can be found here. As a proud dad, I have to mention that my daughter Anamaria was a co-founder of the Edith Stein project and conference when she was an undergraduate at ND. And, special thanks go to Elizabeth Kirk for helping the students organize a fantastic conference.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
A Tale of Two Enlightenments: Modern Image Versus Catholic Truth
The Roman Forum 2009 Symposium entitled "A Tale of Two Enlightenments: Modern Image Versus Catholic Truth," will take place in Garone Riviera, Italy from July 2-13. The application deadline is April 15. For more information, click here.
Here is a taste of the topics to be addressed:
"A Tale of Two Enlightenments, one founded on the false modern image of itself, the other based on Catholic Truth, needs to be told in all its fullness. That tale has its roots in the Catholic revival of the High Middle Ages and the opposition and distorted imitation of its goals that Christian successes aroused. It is a tale that requires a discussion of everything of importance to human life: theology, philosophy, education, psychology, art and architecture, music, statecraft on the international and national level, family life, the errors of both the French as well as the Anglo-American Revolutions, and the twin evils of capitalism and communism."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Debate at Emory on illegal immigration
If you will be in the Atlanta area next Tuesday, February 3, and are free in the evening, you might be interested in "Responses to Those in Our Midst: A Debate on Illegal Immigration." Covington and Burling attorney William Chip and I will be debating the issue at 7pm on the Emory campus. First Things published a two round exchange between the two of us in the May and June/July issues last year.
"How Israel's Propaganda Machine Works"
Is there a Catholic way of thinking through the conflict in the Mideast? To the U.S. media coverage of those events? To the U.S. foreign policy response? Last week I posted an essay/open letter from a priest in Gaza entitled "Parish Priest Recounts Tragedy of Gaza." Here is the beginning of "How Israel's Propaganda Machine Works" by James Zogby:
"As in past Mideast conflicts, both the media story line and political commentary here in the U.S. has closely followed Israel's talking points on the war. This has been an essential component in Israel's early success and in its ability to prolong fighting without U.S. pushback. Because it recognizes the importance of the propaganda war, Israel fights on this front as vigorously and disproportionately as it engages on the battlefield.
Here's how they have done it:
1) Define the terms of debate, and you win the debate. Early on, the Israelis work to define the context, the starting point, and the story line that will shape understanding of the war. In this instance, for example, they succeeded by constant repetition, in establishing the notion that the starting point of the conflict was December 19th, the end of the six-month ceasefire (which Israel described as "unilaterally ended by Hamas"). In doing so, they ignored, of course, their own early November violations, and their failure to honor their commitment in the ceasefire to open Gaza's borders. They also ignored their having reduced Gaza into a dependency, a process which began long before and continued after their withdrawal in 2005. Because they know that most Americans do not closely follow the conflict and are inclined to believe, as the line goes, "what they hear over and over again," this tactic of preemptive definition and repetition succeeds.
2) Recognize that stereotypes work. Because, for generations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been defined with positive cultural images of Israel and negative stereotypes of Palestinians, Israel's propagandists have an advantage here that is easy to exploit..."
For the rest, click here.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Reflections on the Catholic Legal Theory project on the 5th Anniversary of MOJ
The conversation addressing the role of progressive/dissenting/heterodox Catholics on MOJ has been thoughtful and thought provoking, inviting me to think more deeply about the Catholic Legal Theory project as I conceive it and MOJ’s part in that project. First a word about labels. Steve has clearly defined what he means by “progressive,” “dissenting” Catholics. By my count there are three MOJ authors who have publicly identified themselves (whether they would apply Steve’s label’s I don’t know) as fitting within this category. There could be more, but I don’t know. For all the risks of labeling and categorizing, and for all the complexity that Lisa raises, I think Steve’s categorization and labeling perform an important service for our project because it helps us identify some of the tensions within this project itself.
In addition to informational posts, our posts tend to fall into at least two other categories: 1) working to evangelize the culture by thinking with the Church about the role of the state; the relationship between state, person, and other institutions; the role of law in a given society, and application of Church teaching to specific areas of law, culture, and public life; and 2) calling for reform, change, or development of doctrine within the Church. And, this latter type of post is not limited to challenging the Church’s moral teachings but also includes challenges to it theological doctrine as evidenced by disagreement with the Magisterium over the ordination of women.
What is the mission of MOJ? Are these two separate and inconsistent projects? Should there be two blogs – one dedicated to thinking with the Church and the other arguing with it? Or, can the two projects be harmonized in one blog? If so, how?
In our co-edited book, Recovering Self-Evident Truths: Catholic Perspectives on American Law, Teresa Collett and I consciously took the first approach. By way of full disclosure, our Introduction says: “all essayists have attempted to incorporate authoritative and authentic teachings of the Church in their reflections; therefore, readers who wish to see the reflections on American law by those who ‘dissent’ from Church teaching will have to look elsewhere.” (p. 12). In his afterword to the book, Russell Shaw argues that “[u]nless believing, practicing Catholics re-create a viable subculture as the basis for their efforts to engage and, let us hope, reform the secular culture, there is little or no chance that a change for the better will occur.” Amy’s post from a reader and Stephen Braunlich’s response both seem to cry out for the creation of this subculture. And, to a large extent, I think MOJ contributes to the creation of a Catholic subculture desirous of building a culture of life in the larger culture.
One aspect of being Catholic is also being catholic. The Church, like the larger culture is fragmented. A great many American Catholics fall implicitly or explicitly into the category of progressive/dissenter/heterodox. They raise good and sometimes troubling questions that should be addressed and grappled with by those, like me, who are graced (and I do look at this as a grace) with a much less troubled relationship with the institutional Church and its teachings. If those of us who do not categorize ourselves as progressives/dissenters/heterodox are going to be effective in evangelizing the larger culture, we must be in dialogue with our brothers and sisters who, although Catholics, find themselves dissenting from the Church’s teaching. This can be maddening and frustrating at times, but I am convinced that we can’t shut out or ignore these voices.
In short, I think these two projects – thinking with the Church and presenting voices of dissent – can be harmonized on this blog. We ought to consciously recognize that pursuing these two projects side by side creates certain tensions and requires a delicate balance. To strike that balance, I’d vote “no” to Steve’s proposal to add progressives/dissenters/heterodox authors to MOJ. As I conceive it, this project is primarily concerned with the development of Catholic Legal Theory, which means, to my mind, thinking with and applying the teachings of the Church in our legal and academic work. To do this in a robust way, we need to hear and dialogue with persons voicing dissent from those teachings. But, at some point adding more dissenting voices would, I think, detract from and undermine what I identify as the primary goal of the blog.
Consciously recognizing that we are intentionally retaining a permanent minority voice on the blog creates other challenges, but in the end might actually resolve some of the tensions that have arisen on the blog. From my perspective, Steve, Eduardo, and Michael P. play a different albeit important role than the rest of us in our common quest to think as lawyers and academics about law from a Catholic perspective. If I am correct about this (and am not being too presumptuous), I think we should openly acknowledge this fact. Seeing and acknowledging their unique role in our project, helps me to appreciate, cherish, and respect their contribution to the blog.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
One Way to Observe the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
This morning NPR reports that President Obama will likely use this anniversary to lift the ban on U.S. foreign aid assistance to international family planning groups that perform or promote abortion:
“Thursday marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. It's also likely to mark the day President Barack Obama will reverse at least a few of the anti-abortion policies of George W. Bush.
…
The most likely candidate for action is the so-called ‘Mexico City policy,’ known by its detractors as the ‘global gag rule.’ It prohibits U.S. foreign aid assistance to international family planning groups that "perform or promote" abortion.”
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
