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.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Religion on the College Campus

I have often thought our society, including our campuses practice what I would call "thin pluralism."  Pluralism is highly valued but only when we don't take it too seriously. I suspect that in most Property classes taught in the United States, for instance, that most students and faculty would think it odd if a student advocated limits on property rights based on the teachings of her faith. 

In this essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Eboo Patel, argues for a thick pluralism where religion and religious perspective are welcome on the college campus. Here are some highlights but read the whole thing:

It came as no surprise to me to read the recent New York Times article indicating that Muslim students feel particularly welcome on Roman Catholic campuses—precisely because of their faith. ... That was my father's experience at the University of Notre Dame 35 years ago. He was a Muslim immigrant from India in the land of gray snow and white Catholics. While the priests didn't always understand his faith, they always respected it, and he felt that the broader environment nurtured it. ...

When I went to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in the mid-1990s, we were focused on other forms of identity. ... Gender, sexuality, class, and ethnicity all got some airtime, but mostly we talked about race. And one form of identity was almost totally excluded: faith. ...

In the most religiously diverse nation in human history and the most religiously devout nation in the West at a time of global religious conflict, how people from different faith backgrounds get along and what they do together is a crucial question. And so it must be a central question for our public universities as well. ...

 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Hobby Lobby Sue over HHS contraception mandate

Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma based company with over 500 stores in 41 states, filed suit today in federal court challenging "regulations issued under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" arguing that the regulations "would force religiously-motivated business owners like Plaintiffs to violate their faith under threat of millions of dollars in fines."  

Sunday, July 22, 2012

"The Way We Fear Now"

or "The Search for Humanity Continues." I was struck by the contrast between Gary Hart's (remember him?) reflection on the shooting in Colorado with Ross Douthat's reflection.

Hart: "[W]hen one human kills a dozen or more other humans who represent no threat to him, nothing seems to make sense, nothing is reasonable or rational.  It causes us to question ... whether there is a dark side to human nature beyond the reach of reason and sanity ..."

In contrast, knowing that there is a dark side to human nature Douthat can name the particular manifestation of evil: "Nolan’s films are ... effective dramatizations of the Way We Fear Now. Their villains are inscrutable, protean, appearing from nowhere to terrorize, seeking no higher end than chaos, no higher thrill than fear. Their hero fights, not for truth, justice and the American Way, but for a more basic form of civilizational order: He knows his society — his Gotham, our America — is decadent and corrupt in many ways, but he also knows that the alternatives are almost infinitely worse."

And, Douthat can offer a response: "the most important defense of civilization takes place only after tragedy has struck, and innocents have perished. And the real heroes are neither police nor politicians nor an imaginary batsuited billionaire, but the people — whether in Columbine or Lower Manhattan or now Aurora, Colo. — who carry one another through the valley of the shadow of death, and by their conduct ensure that the Jokers and James Holmeses of the world win only temporary victories."

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Great Advice from TaxProf.

Paul Caron shares great advice on marriage.

 

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Roberts' Trojan Horse?

Is the Supreme Court's health care decision a Trojan Horse for those who favor an expansive federal government?  Discuss.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Chaput's speech

A few days ago I provided a snippet of Archbishop Chaput's address on religious freedom. Here is the full thing.

Immigration, Preemption, Arizona, and Scalia's dissenting opinion

The Supreme Court has issued its long awaited opinion in Arizona v. United States, in which it found major portions of Arizona's recent immigration law to be preempted by federal immigration law. Justice Scalia's dissent is fascinating for two reasons.  First, citing Vattel and Pufendorf, he seems to argue that Arizona (at least when not acting contracy to federal law) has sovereign powers to exclude rooted in international law. Second, he recognizes that these "17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century commentators maintained that states should exclude foreigners only for good reasons.  Pufendorf, for example, maintained that states are generally expected to grant 'permanent settlement to strangers who have been driven from their former home..." Page 1, note 1.

While his first point is unlikely to gain much traction among the current court, he second point plants a seed that may bear fruit in the future. Misreading Vattel, Pufendorf, and others, the Supreme Court in the 19th century created what is known in immigration circles as the plenary power doctrine, concluding that Congress (and to some extent the Executive) have almost unbridled power over issues of immigration:  admission, exclusion, and expulsion. This view has carried over into the 20th- and 21st- centuries.  Justice Scalia is the first justice - as far as I can tell - to recognize that even the Law of Nations counciled sovereigns to exercise this "plenary power" prudentially with an eye toward opening boarders as far as possible to those in need. Although it is too early to tell, this footnote might be provide a basis for revisiting the absolutist misreading of the right to exclude.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Archbishop Chaput on religious liberty

I am in Indianapolis at the Catholic Media Conference.  Last night, Archbishop Chaput gave the keynote.  The text will be forthcoming in First Things, but here is a taste:

Here’s my fifth and final point:  Politics and the courts are important.  But our religious
freedom ultimately depends on the vividness of our own Christian faith – in other words, how deeply we believe it, and how honestly we live it.  Religious liberty is an empty shell if the spiritual core of a people is weak. Or to put it more bluntly, if people don’t believe in God, religious liberty isn’t a value.  That’s the heart of the matter.  It’s the reason Pope Benedict calls us to a Year of Faith this October.  The worst enemies of religious freedom aren’t “out there” among the legion of critics who hate Christ or the Gospel or the Church, or all three.  The worst enemies are in here, with us – all of us, clergy, religious and lay – when we live our faith with tepidness, routine and hypocrisy.

Religious liberty isn’t a privilege granted by the state.  It’s our birthright as children of God.  And even the worst bigotry can’t kill it in the face of a believing people. But if we value it and want to keep it, then we need to become people worthy of it.  Which means we need tochange the way we live – radically change, both as individual Catholics and as the Church.

This morning, Carter Snead (Notre Dame), Rita Joyce (General Counsel for the Pittsburgh Diocese), and I followed up with a panel on Religious Liberty in light of the lawsuits filed against the HHS mandate. I contextualized the debate within a) the broader contemprary threats to religious freedom and b) historical threats to religious liberty; Rita gave us great insight into the lawsuits themselves; and Carter addressed broader public policy issues and provided a rejoinder to some of the false claims surfacing in the public debate.  The overflow crowd of Catholic journalists asked some penetrating questions, including one that raised the threats to religious liberty from the spate of state anti-immigration laws and anti-Sharia law laws.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Sr. Margaret Farley's book "Just Love" comes under Vatican Scrutiny

Several years ago, we discussed Sr. Margaret Farley's book "Just Love" on MOJ. Earlier this year, the Vatican issued a NOTIFICATION OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH REGARDING THE BOOK JUST LOVE. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHRISTIAN SEXUAL ETHICS BY SISTER MARGARET A. FARLEY, R.S.M. in which "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses profound regret that a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life, Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality. The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue."

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Sam Brownback and the revitalization of the culture and the economy

Kansas' Governor, Sam Brownback, had an op-ed in the Topeka Capital-Journal yesterday that will be of interest to some of our readers. He says that a mural in the statehouse' west wing "Kansas' answer to the unstated question, "Freedom, yes, but to what end?"

The west wing mural depicts a Kansas farmer and his wife standing straight and tall, surrounded by their children, surveying the fruits of their labor — a barnyard full of livestock, a bountiful garden and grain gathered in the fields. In their bearing is the satisfaction of free people that is tempered with a quiet humility and gratefulness for all they have been given. In the distance, thunderclouds gather, perhaps as a testament to nature and to nature’s God, which graciously gives life and yet may test our unity in times of trouble and scarcity.

...As Kansans, we hold dear the stories and images of liberty and self-determination on the one hand and responsibility and self-sufficiency on the other. Only as we continue to see our lives as rooted in both of these stories will our experiment in self-government endure over many generations.

The men and women who settled our great state, who bled for freedom and dirtied their boots and hands to provide for themselves and their families, understood this well. An 1881 editorial in the Abilene Chronicle summarized it with typical prairie efficiency: “A man with a family, with 160 acres of land in Dickinson County (with a contented mind and a will to work) is far better off than the Astors or Vanderbilts, or even President Garfield, as far as the real substantial enjoyment of life is concerned.”

We can no longer afford to view our current economic crisis as something distinct and apart from the crisis of family and community decay. Increasing economic dependency on a deeply indebted government is not a viable long-term solution.

Likewise, economic opportunities in faraway places that entice our children to abandon the communities that nurtured them cannot be the answer.

Our economic prosperity depends on strong families and strong cultural institutions. Healthy families and communities require economic freedom. The best welfare program is a good job. The best child poverty prevention program is a stable, two-parent home. The best disaster recovery program is a community of resilient and caring neighbors and businesses. The best community revitalization happens when our towns and cities are free to create economic opportunities that stop exporting their best, brightest and hardest working elsewhere.

HT: Christopher Scaperlanda