I’m posting below an interesting, encouraging, and just downright amusing and uplifting message from our friend, David Gregory, at St. John’s University law school in Queens. This message also reports the wide readership of our Mirror of Justice blog.
Let me provide a little background for readers to set the stage for his message to me, which I’m posting with his permission. About a month ago, in the course of a posting on responses to the situation in Darfur, which emphasized the faithful and loving actions of those in the Catholic Worker movement, I included the following side comment:
[Side Note: Perhaps to the bemused surprise of my friends on the Mirror of Justice and elsewhere in the Catholic academic community, where my deserved reputation is rather conservative, I have to say that these Catholic Worker folks are growing on me. Not only have I found myself writing now on this blog for a second time about their efforts to promote human rights in the Sudan, but others have reported on this blog about the group that followed up the John Paul II conference at St. John’s last month by attending an anti-war poetry reading at the Catholic Worker house. While no one has yet “outed” me, I’ll go ahead and admit here that, yes, I was one of that small band that was shepherded by David Gregory from Queens to the East Village to spend a Friday night with the Catholic Workers. No, I’m not ready to join up, but I am pleased to find common ground on many things. And for us as Catholic legal thinkers to be a contradiction to our society, refusing to adhere to general ideological categories and reaching across arbitrary lines to each other, is an essential part of our mission here at the Mirror of Justice.]
And now here are excerpts from David Gregory's message:
"Yesterday morning, at the Communion Breakfast following the First Friday Catholic Lawyers Guild Mass, Archdiocese of NY (at Our Savior Church, Msgr. George Rutler, Park Ave and East 38th Street; Msgr. GR writes for Crisis magazine, and hosted Pres. Bush for Mass during the GOP 2004 convention here in NYC), several fellow attendees told me that you both had very nice compliments for our evening at the Catholic Worker on March 24, at the close of the JP!! Conference.
I am not a blogger, and, for all practical purposes, do not use the Internet (I admit to the undeniable efficiency of email, however; witness this letter, for example!).
I have never read your Mirror of Justice blog, or virtually any other yet, for that matter.
But, anyhow, that is where the good news was reportedly read.
On behalf of St. John's, thanks for whatever the kind words were/are/will be…..
Some reportees were bemused by Greg's apparent GOP confessional.
Greg, if it is some small comfort to you……
All are always welcome at the Worker, and, any time that you and yours are in town, you are always most welcome.
My father was a non-Christian Cherokee animist, for all practical purposes, in his own faith tradition. Impressed with Catholic priests and nuns and their charity to the desperately poor coal mining labor union families during the Appalachian coal mining wars (he and his brothers were union guns, and killed a lot of Pinkertons before he took a bullet in the neck and then went into moonshining before joining on of the last active units of the U.S. cavalary in the early thirties. He admired Catholic charity/corporal works of mercy so much that he worked two jobs as a butcher in Detroit after WWII to come up with the tuition for yours truly to 12 years of Catholic grade and high school. During four years of college seminary, I was trained for the Vatican diplomatic service (but, that is another story). I got my JD from a Jesuit law school (Detroit). My only child is about to graduate from the best Jesuit high school in the U.S. (Regis) and will be a pre-med double major (philosophy and bio-chemistry, so he tells me) at Georgetown this fall. And, here I am, about to start my 25th year of teaching at this Catholic law school.
For the past several years, I have been the general counsel to the Catholic League, Bill D, et. al. Bill is registered Independent, and I may be the only life-long Democrat on the masthead. Hmmm, now what will Tom Hanks and Ron Howard do re: the Code? (We are working for a simple disclaimer, "this is a work of fiction") (but, that is another story, eh?)
I spend as much time at/with Opus Dei (the Work) as I do at the Catholic Worker (and, hey, the Work)! (P.S. And, when next in town, in addition to the CW Friday eve of reflection for the clarification of thought, I also highly recommend the Opus Dei first Monday of the month 5:45--8 PM eve of reflection (at the ODHQ, 139 Lexington Ave. and East 34th St., and superb spiritual directors, but that is another story) (St. Jose Maria was, by the Way (so to speak) a huge fan of St. Ignatius Loyola).
I am an exquisitely disaffected, stalwart pro-life Democrat (and democrat). I am a huge fan of Ex corde, now consigned to the dead letter file, although, as you heard him say, John A of NCR opines that Archbishop Miller, et. al., will perhaps be giving it another go. Through my mother's side of the family, I was/am closer to JPII than all but a few could ever begin to imagine. (My Jewish distinctly better half wept from the first moment she saw him at her first Papal audience in Rome many years ago; she keeps his cards on her windshield visor, and prayed to JPII as our son was taking the SAT----hmmm, ergo, Georgetown? (another story) (Her cousin supplied all of JPII's medical mechanical material, etc., and is the first Jewish person since Bob Hope to be a papal Knight of St. Gregory (Greg, this is the top of the papal knighthoods, if you are into that sort of thing, trumping easily the Ks of Malta, Holy Sepulchre, K of Columbus). (But, my wife's cousin is not my closest tie to JPII…..)
The point, gents, is that with my bizarro, eclectic background, I feel completely liberated and instantly at home in our Church's many, many settings, and, Greg, you should, too!!
Over the weekend, in the wake left by both a colleague and former law student here at the University of St. Thomas, I waded into what Mark Sargent accurately has called a “kerfuffle” about objections raised by Boston College faculty to an honorary degree to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (arguing that her position on the war in Iraq contradicted fundamental Catholic teachings), together with a supplemental inquiry about whether objections to speakers and honors based on fundamental conflicts with Catholic principles were being made consistently. The heart and soul of my weekend posting affirmed the great value of asking such questions about Catholic character in our academic communities, addressing fundamental Catholic values and striving always for consistency in principle, but not insisting upon my own particular answers on every occasion to those questions. As I stated, in my view, the Catholic character of an institution is strengthened and highlighted by the very asking of the questions.
Yesterday, at the request of my colleague, Elizabeth Brown, I posted a message in which she challenged the accuracy of a partial list of pro-abortion Boston College speakers and honorees obtained from the Cardinal Newman Society. Allowing my colleague Elizabeth to present her message without interruption, I promised any response would be separate and subsequent.
In my weekend posting, I deliberately focused upon the general subject of Catholic identity in higher education, while pausing only briefly to address the controversy of the moment that initiated this debate. Because I do not wish us to miss the forest for the trees, I am wary of entering a tit-for-tat exchange, that could spiral down into increasingly fine factual distinctions of diminishing importance. And, as what follows shows, correcting the factual record is meticulous work requiring a protracted explanation, which is ill-suited for a blog. At the same time, we cannot truly explore the meaning of a principle without seeing it in actual application. To belabor the metaphor, the forest cannot be fully appreciated without giving attention to each tree and, on occasion, examining the health of individual leaves. So here is a more specific response and some corrections to the factual record as explored by Elizabeth’s posting. And then I’ll withdraw for a while so as not to dominate the conversation with these lengthy postings.
In yesterday’s posting, Elizabeth Brown listed each pro-abortion public figure identified by the Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) as having been a commencement speaker or award recipient at Boston College—and then outlined what she viewed as the crucial errors and omissions in that CNS list. As an engagement with and as one plausible answer to the consistency question, I find Elizabeth’s message to be a qualified success. As an exercise in exposure of error, I respectfully submit she falls short and actually introduces error in ascribing error. Still, given that I am more interested in progress in encouraging and addressing questions about Catholic identity, the successful dimension of Elizabeth’s message largely outweighs the failure in my mind, although both deserve some further discussion below.
Elizabeth asserts essentially three mistakes or omissions in the Cardinal Newman Society’s listing of speakers or honorees. First, in the case of one Boston College honorary degree recipient, CNS identified the person as the chairwoman of a particular organization with a public record of promoting abortion, whereas Elizabeth emphasizes that she did not become the chair until the month following the college recognition. However, as it turns out, this individual had been named chair months earlier, as evidenced by numerous news reports dating months before the college event, although she did not officially step up to that post until shortly after the college honor. Moreover, she had been a prominent member of the organization’s board for more than a decade previously and had been named fellow of that organization nearly two decades earlier. In other words, at the time of the honor, she most definitely did have the "ability to shape or influence the policies" of the organization.
The second objection Elizabeth raises is that all but one of the pro-abortion advocates CNS identifies were commencement speakers or honorees at the Boston College law school rather than for the college as a whole. She’s certainly correct about this, but mistaken in attributing error to CNS. In its published reports and on its web site, the Cardinal Newman Society accurately reports that each of the individuals that Elizabeth discusses indeed were speakers at the law school commencement or received an honor at the law school.
Moreover, even if CNS had not carefully and accurately reported these cases as law school recognitions (as it did), the indelible fact would remain that the institution had bestowed such an honor. Now I do think the fact that these honors were located in a particular department of the college is relevant to the question of consistency by faculty in raising objections (as I discuss below). But from an institutional standpoint, a commencement speaker at a law school or graduate school or business school commencement is a commencement speaker at that college of university. If it is objectionable for a college or university to honor a public official whose position or conduct arguably stands in egregious contradiction to Catholic teaching, then it does not become less so because the figure is honored at one school rather than another. Indeed, while Secretary Rice is to be the commencement speaker for the entire university, I understand that the honor to be conferred is an honorary doctor of laws.
Elizabeth also attributes error to CNS’s listing because she emphasizes that the commencement speakers were not selected for that honor because of their pro-abortion stance. But this reflects no error on the part of CNS. Neither CNS nor anyone else has suggested that Boston College affirmatively endorsed pro-abortion advocacy as the actual reason for these recognitions. Thus, Elizabeth’s listing of achievements by and quotation of commendations to the specific commencement speakers or honorees does not contradict the description by CNS of the prominent roles played by these same public figures in promoting the abortion license.
So the Cardinal Newman Society passes the accuracy test with flying colors. And somewhat ironically, given the matter that provoked the "kerfuffle" in the first place, that same organization actually has joined in objecting to any honor to Secretary Rice at Boston College, focusing upon Secretary Rice’s support for the abortion license.
Still, while Elizabeth may have gone awry in identifying errors, I do think she succeeds, at least in part, in offering a fuller context in support of a plausible answer to the consistency question. In particular, after explaining that most of these arguably pro-abortion figures were commencement speakers at the law school, Elizabeth suggests that faculty from elsewhere in a college or university might feel constrained from voicing a protest. To be sure, one could argue that principled objections, at least those framed in terms of a fundamental conflict with Catholic teaching, ought be projected beyond the hallways of one’s particular department or school. Moreover, the post that raised the consistency question on this blog was directed to all protesting faculty at Boston College, which as a group apparently numbers around 150 and quite probably includes members of the law faculty.
Yet Elizabeth further submits that faculty from elsewhere in a university (and I would bolster her point here by saying that the same could be said for those within a particular component) might be inclined to voice any objection to an honor or speaker in another department in a private communication. Given that respect and decorum often counsel the private expression of concerns, the possibility that some of the presently-objecting faculty may have raised private objections in the past strikes me as a fair answer. In any event, as Elizabeth concludes, absent further information to the contrary, we ought to assume good faith on the part of all concerned. I would include as well those who raise questions.
In sum, while I understand that Elizabeth viewed her message as a correction to what she (mistakenly) viewed as inaccurate information, I believe that her message served better as a decent if not dispositive answer to the underlying merits of the consistency question. In other words, rather than exposing the consistency question as inherently flawed in the asking or undermining the legitimacy of the inquiry, she inadvertently affirmed the question by attempting to answer it. And I see that as a quite good thing.
In the end, what matters most is that we confront the consistency question, not as a substitute for addressing the merits of the objection at hand but as a supplemental inquiry. After all, a perfectly understandable answer to the consistency question would be simply to say, well, there has to be a first time for any one of us to raise a principled objection, that is, for any of us to call upon an institution to live up to its Catholic identity. That due to reticence or ignorance or neglect or simply being distracted I may have failed to stand up for principle in the past surely is no reason to continue to do so. The acid test is whether, now that I have spoken up for Catholic character, will I continue to do so in the future.
And so I end where I began over the weekend: Both lines of inquiry—about objections to honors in specific cases and about consistency in treatment in general—are honorable and fairly posed and legitimately explored on the Mirror of Justice and elsewhere. When we assume good faith on the part of all participants in the debate, the introduction of a dialogue about affirming the Catholic character of our institutions should in itself have the salutary effect of strengthening that character.
My colleague, Elizabeth Brown, has asked that I post her message below concerning the list of previous commencement speakers and award recipients at Boston College in the Cardinal Newman Society report. By passing along this message, I should not be understood as necessarily endorsing these as vital corrections or saying that they denote underlying error in each instance. Still, I did quote John Adams in my prior post as saying that facts are stubborn things. Accordingly, when asked, I surely ought to facilitate the fleshing out of that factual record more fully, allowing each reader to make his or her own judgment as to significance and implications. Any further comments I may have will be reserved for a later posting, allowing Elizabeth to speak here without further interruption.
Greg Sisk
* * *
The Cardinal Newman Society’s List of Errors
In light of the current protest over Secretary Rice as the commencement speaker for Boston College, a list of past Boston College awards recipients and commencement speakers taken from the Cardinal Newman Society’s website was posted to MoJ. As previously noted, Bishop John Vlazny, the retiring chairman of the Bishops and Presidents Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated that the Bishops and Presidents Committee often found the Cardinal Newman Society to be “inaccurate”. The list from CNS on MoJ contains numerous errors and omissions and gives the misleading impression that Boston College was honoring these individuals for work that was contrary to Catholic Social Teachings.
Below is the list as it was posted to MoJ followed in brackets by a list of each of the errors and omissions made by the Cardinal Newman Society:
Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, Honorary Degree, Chairwoman of the John D. &
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (May 2002). The MacArthur Foundation's
Population and Reproductive Health grant program is a leading contributor to
organizations advocating abortion, contraception and population control.
[Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot did not become the Chairwoman for the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation until June 2002. At the time that she received the award from Boston College, she had no ability to shape or influence the policies of the MacArthur Foundation. She was, however, only the second African-American woman to receive tenure at Harvard and was a noted scholar in the area of sociology. In giving her the award, Boston College voiced “profound respect and gratitude for her lavish enrichment of the academy and her heritage as teacher and scholar”.]
Paul Cellucci, Ambassador to Canada and former Massachusetts Governor (May
2002). While governor, Cellucci was a strong advocate of abortion rights.
[Paul Cellucci was not a speaker at the commencement ceremony for the entire university, but only for the Law School. Celluci was a graduate of Boston College Law School. BC Law Dean John H. Garvey praised Cellucci’s outstanding legal career and service to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. “The Law School takes great pride in the dedication and quality of its alumni,” Garvey said. “He served with great distinction during his years as governor. And he has served the people of the United States well as our ambassador to Canada.” See Boston College, News, 2002-Archive. Objections were raised about Cellucci, not only because of his stand on abortion, but over his support for the death penalty. According to the Boston Globe, Cardinal Bernard Law publicly objected to Cellucci’s support for the death penalty. "The teachings of the church are very clear," Law said. "For a well-informed Catholic to support capital punishment, it would be morally wrong. And if one knowingly rejects the teachings of the church it is wrong, morally evil, and a sin."]
Walter Dellinger, commencement speaker, May 24, 2004. Dellinger was closely
associated with NARAL Pro-Choice America and chaired NARAL's 1992 commission
to defend Roe v. Wade.
[Walter Dellinger was not the commencement speaker for the entire university on May 24, 2004. Tim Russert was the university’s commencement speaker. Dellinger was the commencement speaker for the Law School. Dellinger is the Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law at Duke University and also is the head of appellate practice at O’Melveny & Myers in Washington, D.C. Dellinger served as acting Solicitor General for the 1996-97 Term of the Supreme Court. During his tenure, he argued nine cases before the Court, the most by any Solicitor General in more than 20 years. His arguments included cases dealing with physician-assisted suicide, the line item veto, the cable television act, the Brady Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the constitutionality of remedial services for parochial school children. Regarding the choice of Dellinger as a speaker, BC Law Dean John H. Garvey commented: “Walter Dellinger has had a remarkable career. He has argued some of the most important cases before the Supreme Court in the last decade. He’s a very influential figure in the profession. I am very pleased that our graduating class will have the chance to hear what he has to say.” See Boston College, News, 2004-Archive.]
Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, author of Stenberg v.
Carhart, commencement address, May 23, 2003.
[Justice Stephen Breyer was not the commencement speaker for the entire university. He was the commencement speaker for the Law School. "We are honored to have Justice Breyer address the graduates this year," said BC Law Dean John H. Garvey. "He is one of the most important figures in contemporary American law -- a man of extraordinary intellect, great integrity, and a lifelong commitment to serving the public interest. I am happy for the members of the class of 2003 that he will be joining them at this important point in their careers." Justice Breyer also received the BC Law School’s Founder’s Medal, the highest honor bestowed by BC Law School.]
Rev. Robert Drinan, received BC's first Distinguished Service Medal (October
2004). As congressman, opposed numerous efforts
to ban federal funding of abortions. In 1996, published articles in the
National Catholic Reporter and the New York Times supporting
President Bill Clinton's veto of a partial-birth abortion ban.
[Fr. Drinan received the Distinguished Service Medal from BC Law School, not the university. In making this award, BC Law Dean John Garvey commented: “Father Bob Drinan was one of the most influential deans in the history of the school. He was instrumental in expanding and improving the reputation of Boston College Law throughout the nation. I am constantly hearing stories from alumni who were inspired by him, who thank him for getting them into Law School and starting their careers. He has been a personal hero to me.” Drinan was Dean of BC Law School from 1956 to 1970.]
Only one of these individuals, Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, was given an award by the university. All of the others were given awards by or were commencement speakers of BC Law School. Certainly, it might be considered a matter of prudential judgment whether a faculty member in the Theology Department has a moral obligation to object publicly to what the Law School does.
The fact of the matter is that no one knows for certain if Fr. Himes and Fr. Hollenbach raised any private or public objections to any of these speakers. Until someone provides evidence that they did not object to these speakers, perhaps we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, and focus instead on the merits of the award recipient that they have publicly objected to, Secretary of State Rice, who is being honored with an honorary Doctor of Laws, according to Boston College’s press release regarding its commencement, because she is “one of the chief architects of U.S. foreign policy in the new millennium.”
Elizabeth F. Brown
Assistant Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas
School of Law
Were I a member of the faculty at Boston College, I would applaud Professors Himes and Hollenbach for voicing an objection to an award of an honorary degree by Boston College at its commencement to a public official whose positions on public policy they sincerely believe to contradict fundamental Catholic values. And then, having welcomed the initiation of a conversation, I would argue on the merits that the proposed university recognition of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nonetheless was appropriate.
Let me explain: First, I would appreciate the reminder by members of the faculty that a Catholic institution ought to behave in a manner consistent with its Catholic character. Second, I would encourage our educational community to regularly engage in dialogue about the Catholic mission of the institution. And, third, if I were a participant in that particular debate, I would submit that Secretary Rice’s support of the use of force in Iraq to remove a dangerous regime with a horrific human rights record constituted a legitimate and reasonable, even if mistaken, exercise of prudential judgment. In her message posted recently, my colleague Elizabeth Brown passionately and appropriately insists that the merits of this question—the propriety of extending an honor at a Catholic institution to Secretary Rice—not be side-stepped. I agree with my colleague on the importance of such an examination, although I do not arrive at the same answer. But even should my view of the merits of the honor not prevail, I still would regard the precedent of an affirmative institutional commitment to uphold Catholic values as an important victory.
In other words, whether at Boston College, at my own institution (the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota), or at another Catholic institution of higher education, I regard the sincere and persistent asking of mission-focused questions—e.g., how should this Catholic college or university uphold Catholic values and how should the distinct Catholic identity of this institution be invigorated—as being of greater importance than how the questions are answered on each occasion. Moreover, I expect the discussion that follows the asking of such questions to be enlightening to us all and to manifest diversity within the Catholic community about how basic and sometimes abstract principles of Catholic social teaching are to be applied to particular and often complex situations to arrive at an acceptable range of answers.
As we pursue this vital exploration of Catholic identity, I expect that we often will arrive at an institutional approach that respects faithful difference, humbly concluding that reasonable people of good faith are not of a single mind as to the implications of Catholic teaching. Whether we are considering issues of academic direction or matters of public controversy, we will find that analysis of many, even most, questions involves prudential judgment that must be guided by fundamental moral principles, but upon which persons of good will and common faith reasonably may differ. On a few occasions, despite sincere disagreement, we may be faced with an unavoidable choice, where tolerant non-action is not possible or is not advisable, thus requiring us simply to do the best we can, if imperfectly, to affirm Catholic character. And on still other occasions, we will be obliged to uphold fundamental Church teachings that cannot be compromised. For example, in contrast with the realm of prudential policy judgments that describes most issues of social justice, certain forms of societal behavior that implicate public policy are so manifestly and grievously wrong as to be categorically prohibited. In these instances of intrinsic evil—slavery, genocide, racist oppression, torture, and abortion—moral principle and policy effectively merge, sharply circumscribing prudential judgment. Because there is no room for equivocation, qualification, or compromise of elemental principles, the Catholic institution cannot subordinate these principles when making institutional decisions. In sum, while the project of affirming and refreshing Catholic character for the institution is a long-term and difficult task, and will not always achieve consensus, I again applaud Professors Himes and Hollenbach, as well as my colleague, Elizabeth Brown, in calling for concerted and faithful action by a Catholic university to adhere to and manifest Catholic teaching in its public disposition.
As we struggle with the question of Catholic character, we of course must also strive for consistency, both as a matter of faithfulness to the principles affirmed and as a matter of fair and equal treatment. This is the question which our former St. Thomas student Patrick Shrake honorably raised in his message posted on the Mirror of Justice. Pat’s posing of the pertinent inquiry about consistency in application of Catholic teaching when considering honors granted to speakers by a Catholic institution was not a diversion from the merits of a particular case. Rather, it was an appropriate supplementation to that question. Both sets of questions—the particular question pursued in Elizabeth Brown’s message about whether Secretary Rice’s position is in fundamental conflict with Catholic teaching and the consistency query offered by Pat Shrake—are well-presented.
Importantly, and in fairness, Pat Shrake’s introduction of a related but quite pertinent question should not be viewed as an “attack [on] the integrity” of anyone. Nor was Pat’s listing of pro-choice individuals who have spoken at Boston College commencements, apparently without objection, rendered unreliable because he identified his source as the Cardinal Newman Society’s report. If the list of speakers is accurate, which no one has contested, then the source of that accurate information does not detract from its accuracy. Facts, as John Adams said two centuries ago, are stubborn things.
Both my colleague Elizabeth Brown and our former student Pat Shrake wish to pursue legitimate and related if separable issues that deserve deliberative consideration on the Mirror of Justice and elsewhere in our diverse Catholic community. Elizabeth sincerely and plausibly wishes to press the argument that the Bush administration’s position on the war in Iraq is inconsistent with Catholic teaching and therefore that a Catholic college or university would betray its Catholic character by honoring a member of that administration. Pat suggests that any policy or approach that disqualifies some or another person from a university honor because of a fundamental conflict with Catholic values ought to be applied consistently—with special attention to the Church’s clear and emphatic teachings about such intrinsic evils as abortion. One could agree with both points (or not). That Elizabeth is more interested in the former question than the latter does not make Pat’s question any the less relevant. Pat admittedly (and forthrightly) does not address Elizabeth’s area of interest. But then neither does Elizabeth’s summation on the academic credentials of certain faculty members provide any answer to Pat’s query about principled consistency.
In the end, that little section of the public square that we call the Mirror of Justice is quite big enough to include both lines of inquiry, and both sets of questions are fairly explored here. We’re fortunate to have both Elizabeth and Pat wading into the fray about these issues.
In recent weeks, we have witnessed increased public attention and signs of meaningful action in America in response to the ongoing genocide in Darfur in the Sudan, which have been manifested in several encouraging ways. This is a crucial time, so don’t let this moment pass without having your voice heard as well, at least by our own government if not that of the Sudan.
First, in late March, the Sudanese government paid a million dollars to run an eight-page advertising supplement in the New York Times touting the purportedly peaceful climate and democratic culture in the Sudan, while aggressively marketing business and investment opportunities in that oil-rich nation [link here]. Still, even in the course of this public relations offensive, the Sudanese government was forced to acknowledge the ongoing tragedy in Darfur, if only by way of dismissal. The New York Times advertisement says that government “Ministers are frustrated that coverage of Sudan in the international media has focused almost exclusively on the fighting between rebels and Arab militias in the western province of Darfur.” Sudanese officials further are quoted as complaining that Darfur is not all there is to the Sudan.
How frustrating indeed it must be for the Sundanese government that the pesky international media (not to mention human rights groups and international organizations) would let a thing like genocide occupy so much attention. Importantly, this episode—in which the Sudanese government felt compelled to mention the situation and insist that it would be properly addressed—demonstrates that international efforts to restore human dignity for all people in Darfur are being heard. And they are being heard in the Sudan. Now is no time to rest but instead to redouble efforts.
Second, to follow-up up on an event whose planning I had reported in a prior posting, dozens of protestors, many from the Catholic Workers movement, marched to the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. on March 29 to highlight the injustice in Darfur. As I said previously, I tend to be quite critical of the use of civil obedience, not in its traditional form to refuse to obey an unjust law, but instead as a strategy to secure public attention by law-breaking. Still, if there were a cause that justified attention-getting-by-law-breaking, this would be it and the place to do it would be at the Sudanese embassy. And from reports of the event last week, it appears that the law enforcement agents making the arrests saw it that way as well, offering supportive and admiring words to the protestors, even as the officers did their job in arresting and processing them. You can read more about this event, and why some of the protestors believe being arrested during the demonstration was justified, on the website of the Catholic Workers in Worcester, Massachusetts [links here and here].
And I cannot leave unmentioned an additional dimension to this story, which says much about the heart of the Catholic Workers involved in this and other demonstrations about Darfur. While the protestors have left no doubt as to their fervent opposition to the policies of the Sudanese government, they simultaneously have demonstrated their respect and love for the human beings employed at the embassy. This of course only strengthens and makes concrete the protestors’ insistence upon honoring the dignity of every person. How have they done this? Well, by making a direct human connection. Last summer, the Catholic Workers volunteered to assist with landscaping improvement on the front grounds of the Sudanese embassy, working side-by-side with an embassy staffer. At last week’s protest, the Catholic Workers were pleased to see that the lawn remained in the new and improved state as they had left it (and to warmly greet the embassy staffer as well). [link]
[Side Note: Perhaps to the bemused surprise of my friends on the Mirror of Justice and elsewhere in the Catholic academic community, where my deserved reputation is rather conservative, I have to say that these Catholic Worker folks are growing on me. Not only have I found myself writing now on this blog for a second time about their efforts to promote human rights in the Sudan, but others have reported on this blog about the group that followed up the John Paul II conference at St. John’s last month by attending an anti-war poetry reading at the Catholic Worker house. While no one has yet “outed” me, I’ll go ahead and admit here that, yes, I was one of that small band that was shepherded by David Gregory from Queens to the East Village to spend a Friday night with the Catholic Workers. No, I’m not ready to join up, but I am pleased to find common ground on many things. And for us as Catholic legal thinkers to be a contradiction to our society, refusing to adhere to general ideological categories and reaching across arbitrary lines to each other, is an essential part of our mission here at the Mirror of Justice.]
Third, pending before Congress this month is an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that would add $175 million for peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. This would be used to bolster the thin line of African Union troops trying to restore order and protect humanitarian efforts in that devastated region.
Fourth, and related to the third point, the Save Darfur Coalition is promoting this week (April 2-9) as a week of prayer and action. Further information can be found at SaveDarfur.org. The Coalition seeks to bring a million voices to bear on this issue, through an on-line postcard to President Bush (takes only a few seconds to include your voice). In addition, take a moment this week (or next) and send a message to your representative in Congress, urging additional funding for a multinational force to end the genocide in the Sudan. And as you go to Palm Sunday Mass, dedicate it through your prayers to the people of Darfur.
During this period of Lent, as we reflect upon our sins, repent, and receive the gift of pardon from our Heavenly Father, it is an appropriate time as well to reflect upon the increasingly neglected role of mercy, of forgiveness in our criminal justice system.
Margaret Colgate Love, probably the nation’s leading expert on executive clemency, has published a piece, “Reviving the Benign Prerogative of Pardoning,” in the latest issue of Litigation (Winter 2006), the magazine of the American Bar Association’s Section on Litigation. If you are an ABA member, you can access the article at this link. Otherwise, the Litigation journal should be available in almost any law library.
Ms. Love begins the article in this way:
Pardon is a mysterious, alien presence that hovers outside the legal system. It is capable of undoing years of criminal investigation and prosecution at the stroke of a pen, but it is of questionable present-day relevance even for criminal law practitioners. Pardon is like a lightning strike or a winning lottery ticket, associated with end-of-term scandals and holiday gift giving. It is capricious, unaccountable, inaccessible to ordinary people, easily corrupted, and regarded with deep suspicion by politicians and the public alike. To the extent that scholars think about it, pardon is regarded as a constitutional anomaly, not part of the checks-and-balances package, a remnant of tribal kingship tucked into Article II that has no respectable role in a democracy. One of pardon’s few friends in the academy, Daniel T. Kobil, has called it “a living fossil.”
Unkindest cut of all, pardon is not taken very seriously as an instrument of government. Even President Clinton’s final pardons now are recalled more as an embarrassing lapse of judgment than as a genuine abuse of power. His successor’s pardoning has been meager and meaningless. A lot of state governors don’t use their pardon power at all.
Ms. Love outlines how the exercise of clemency, both at the federal and state levels, has declined sharply since the 1970s. At the federal level, the percentage of pardon petitions acted favorably by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt through Jimmy Carter was about 30 percent, but since has dropped to but a handful. She identifies this decline as being attributable to the theory of just desserts in which the retributivist philosophy was hostile to clemency, the politics of crime which made it politically risky for politicians to offer pardon to criminals, and the hostility of prosecutors who opposed the loss of control over criminal matters that comes with executive consideration of pardon petitions. Yet, Ms. Love concludes that “there is a compelling present need for pardon because the criminal justice system has never been more harsh and unforgiving.”
[In the past, I have written more circumspectly about the pardon power, in the wake of President Clinton’s astonishingly misguided pardons on the eve of his departure from office (available at this link). While my concerns about abuses remain well-taken, I still think, my past writing did not do justice – pun intended – to the importance of mercy, through clemency and otherwise, in the criminal justice system.]
We Catholics are often said, with tongue only partly in cheek, that we know a great deal about guilt. But we also know much about reconciliation and forgiveness. Reviving what Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 74 called the “benign prerogative” by which “the mercy of the government” is extended ought to be a central part of any Catholic jurisprudence.
If Catholic Legal Studies should succeed in becoming a distinct and meaningful movement within American jurisprudence in the coming decades, the symposium on “The Jurisprudential Legacy of John Paul II” at St. John’s University this past weekend will be remembered as a watershed event. Not only were each of the presentations wonderful contributions toward a jurisprudence grounded in Catholic social thought and the Catholic intellectual tradition, but the spirit of fellowship generated among all the participants was tangible and powerful. In this respect, the reception, dinner, luncheon, and closing Eucharist proved to be a vitally important opportunities to build community and strengthen personal and spiritual, as well as scholarly, ties among people of faith. While we experienced the great diversity of thought among Catholic intellectuals and legal scholars in this country, we were even more likely to see points of commonality emerging and to experience a palpable sense of common purpose.
At the end of his keynote address at the Friday luncheon, John Allen (the Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter) offered these closing words, which were a perfect summation of what we were about at the St. John’s symposium:
Those of you in this room have a vital role to play in bringing the best of Catholic moral and social reflection together with the highest standards of Western legal thought. As you move forward, I would like to leave you with a personal fervorino. I would urge you to wrestle with these questions in a spirit of genuine ecclesial communion, which in practical terms means, don’t just round up the usual suspects among the ideologically like-minded. The Church in the United States has been badly hobbled in attempts to respond to questions such as these, or anything else, by our deep ideological and tribal divisions. Catholic jurists and political theorists can set an example by fostering a conversation which is inclusive and respectful, but which also has teeth in insisting upon identifiably “Catholic” answers to our challenges. Looking over the speakers and topics for this conference, it’s obvious that you are already animated by that spirit. I would encourage you to be as imaginative as possible about how that model might be more widely diffused. If you can do that, you impact, like that of John Paul II, will transcend the boundaries of law and politics, and become a point of light for all of us.
As we rose to applaud these enlightening remarks, those of us who are participants on this blog (to a great or lesser degree of regularity) found ourselves looking around at each other and agreeing that John Allen’s charge — to “foster[] a conversation which is inclusive and respectful, but which also has teeth in insisting upon identifiably ‘Catholic’ answers to our challenges” — stated the mission as well of the Mirror of Justice.
Together with our Catholic “fellow-travelers” at a growing number of law schools and elsewhere in the academy, we who make up the larger Mirror of Justice community do have a unique opportunity in the coming years. We should strive to become something of a contradiction to society, which tends to group everyone on one or the other side of an ideological divide. What we heard and felt at the St. John’s symposium makes me greatly optimistic that we can have an impact on the legal and political culture and do so in unity while retaining our diversity of approach.
In recent empirical study of judicial decisionmaking, Michael Heise (Cornell), Andy Morriss (Case Western), and I have been exploring religious liberty cases in the lower federal courts. The enduring legal myth is that members of minority religious groups face a decidedly uphill battle in securing accommodation for unconventional religious practices, expression, or values from the courts. According to the conventional wisdom, traditional Christian believers may anticipate a more hospitable welcome from the judiciary when asserting claims of conscience or religious liberty. However based upon our empirical study of religious liberty decisions in the federal courts, the proposition that minority religions are less successful with their claims was found to be without support, at least in the modern era and in the lower federal courts. In fact, counter to popular belief, adherents to traditionalist Christian faiths, notably Roman Catholics and Baptists, appear to be the ones that today enter the courthouse doors at a disadvantage.
For the next week, I will be guest-blogging once daily on the subject of this study and the nature and meaning of the findings at "The Volokh Conspiracy" (volokh.com), identified just last week in the Wall Street Journal as one of the leading legal blogs in the country (hence my great appreciation for being invited by Eugene Volokh to share some ideas on this topic with his readers). I invite "Mirror of Justice" readers to surf over and, after the week is concluded, I may continue the conversation and respond further to comments back here at home on the "Mirror of Justice."
Many of the participants and readers of the Mirror of Justice may be well aware of the invaluable Catholic Information Service for Africa (CISA), but for those (like me until recently) who are not, let me highlight this Kenyan-based source of news about the African continent. At least twice each week the CISA provides a list of news stories about Africa – ranging from the ongoing genocide in Darfur to the recent peaceful transition of power in Liberia – with a special focus on the activities of the Catholic Church and on events that have a Catholic or faith-based perspective. (And for research purposes, the CISA maintains extraordinarily extensive news archives as well.)
The CISA was founded by Catholic congregations looking to network together as the local Church in Africa and to link with the Universal Church. The mission statement explains: “The Catholic Information Service for Africa (CISA) wants to provide its audience with news about the Church from an African perspective, be at the service of the local Church and open to the world.”
Not only does the CISA provide a continual and reliable source of news about developments throughout Africa, which of course is its greatest treasure, but the CISA also is an excellent resource on Vatican and Catholic developments generally. I’m sure that many of our participants and readers regularly consult various internet sites for news about the Vatican. Let me encourage you to start your news briefings with the CISA, which will connect you not only with the news from Rome but allow you to remain better informed about the precious continent that is the birthplace of the human race and, in my view, likely to be central to the future of our common faith. You can access the CISA news service through this link.
At the beginning of any papacy, people carefully look for signs of continuity with, or variation from, the vision or style of the previous Pope. Thus, observers understandably have been combing through the first encyclical issued by Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, in an attempt to decipher the themes of the new papacy and identify possible points of departure from the actions and messages of John Paul II. When the new pope so often has been caricatured as authoritarian and rigidly doctrinal, statements by him that reflect nuance regarding the role of the Catholic Church in public life and an emphasis of the removal of the Church from ordinary politics take on heightened importance.
In terms of the Church’s relationship with the temporal civil order, which of course is also a matter of primary concern for the Mirror of Justice and its participants, Benedict XVI had this to say:
“The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.” (Deus Caritas Est, para. 28a)
In emphasizing the proper role of the Church in the awakening and formation of conscience, while insisting that the Church must not enter into the “political battle” that remains instead the separate vocation of the laity, Pope Benedict XVI’s words have been portrayed by some as a departure from the public witness of his predecessor. After all, John Paul II addressed civil authorities regularly with boldness and spoke with prophetic directness on issues of human rights, pointedly including the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
I submit that these observers both have misread Benedict XVI as foreshadowing something of a withdrawal by the Church on direct engagement with civil regimes on basic matters of human rights (including sanctity of life issues) and have misunderstood the non-political nature of John Paul II in his forthrightly religious witness in the public square. In other words, I see Benedict XVI's first encyclical as steadily in continuity with John Paul II in the understanding of the appropriate role of the Catholic Church when it encounters the temporal civil order. John Paul II confronted tyranny in many areas of the world and the self-centered idolatries in our corner of the globe by speaking the truth plainly and by encouraging an evangelical spirit that would transform societies by first bringing spiritual renewal to the people. But John Paul II eschewed direct political involvement by the Church or its clery, particularly that of a partisan nature.
The priority of evangelical renewal in John Paul II’s messages was often overlooked, given the uncompromising power of his words regarding the sanctity of human life and the greater specificity of his teachings on the fundamental duty of civil society to protect human life and dignity (e.g., Evangelium Vitae). However, one should not extrapolate a general political agenda, much less a call for direct Church involvement in political campaigns or ideological platforms, from the Church’s teachings condemning such inherent evils as genocide, slavery, and abortion. As did John Paul II, Benedict XVI as the occasion arises undoubtedly will regularly reaffirm the dedication of the Church to the fundamental principles of human dignity in any civil society, beginning with the right to life and including the freedom of religion, to educate children, and to receive the basic necessities of life. As Benedict XVI now counsels, the Church’s primary salvific role and its necessary separation from political life was underscored as well by John Paul II.
In reading Benedict XVI’s encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, as it touched briefly on the role of the Church in public life, I was reminded of John Paul II’s strikingly parallel words at a similarly early point in his papacy. In his very first pastoral journey in January, 1979, the new pontiff visited the Conference of Latin American Bishops (Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano) in Puebla, Mexico. Far fom praising the increasingly partisan and radical political activism of some bishops and clergy in Latin America, who were loosely gathered under the banner of “Liberation Theology,” the Holy Father wholly rejected the reconception of Jesus as a political, even violent, revolutionary, rather than the divine Son of God with a “redemptive mission.” In his Puebla address, John Paul II emphasized that the Church’s prophetic voice on behalf of the poor and oppressed must be grounded in the Good News of Christ Jesus. By restoring the Church’s spiritual mission, he said, “we are capable of serving human beings and our peoples, of penetrating their culture with the Gospel, of transforming hearts, and of humanizing systems and structures.” The truly revolutionary role of the Church is evangelism, changing the culture by changing the hearts of men and women through a transformative encounter with the Living God through His Son, Jesus. “[E]vangelizing is the essential mission, the specific vocation, the innermost identity of the Church.”
As John Paul II later explained in his Encyclical, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, to achieve an authentic advancement of human dignity, bishops and priests must focus upon their pastoral vocation of teaching and service, that is, sharing the saving message of Christ, reminding the faithful of the social doctrine of the Church, and exercising Christian charity to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and minister to the sick. “For the Church does not propose economic and political systems or programs, nor does she show preference for one or the other, provided that human dignity is properly respected and promoted, and provided she herself is allowed the room she needs to exercise her ministry in the world.” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, paras. 41-42)
For those of us who live, work, and have our being in systems of law and politics, we need to be reminded that while we should always be guided by the Church’s teachings, especially those concerning the dignity of all persons, we may never insist that the Church endorse any particular political agenda. And we must never delude ourselves into believing that what we may accomplish by way of legal reform or political success can ever substitute for the way of salvation offered through Jesus Christ. During his one-month papacy, Pope John Paul I insisted that “it is a mistake to state that political, economic, and social liberation coincide with salvation in Jesus Christ; that the regnum Dei is identified with the regnum hominis.” (John Paul I, Catechetical Lesson on the Theological Virtue of Hope, (Sept. 20, 1978) From John Paul I, through John Paul II, and on to Benedict XVI, the Gospel message for the temporal world and more importantly for the transcendent future remains the same.
