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.

Friday, April 24, 2009

A Jesuit Law School: What's the Difference

Yesterday I participated in a program at Loyola Law School that aimed at dialogue over what it means for a law school to be Jesuit and Catholic.  MOJ'er John Breen organized and moderated the event, which included myself, Vince Rougeau (Notre Dame) and Tom Kohler (Boston College).  We each reflected on the broad topic of what it means to say that a law school is Catholic and shared how the Catholic tradition is reflected in our own work at the Catholic law schools with which we are affiliated.  Tom started us off with a talk that addressed, among other things, the integral relationship between law and religion and between religion and higher education.  Vince then talked about the influence of Catholic Social Thought on his teaching, ideas of service and scholarship.

I expressed my view there are two separate aspects to what is (or ought to be) distinctive about a Jesuit and Catholic law school as opposed to a secular one, the first having to do with formation and the second having to do with the transmission of the Catholic intellectual tradition.

With respect to the former, from a Jesuit or Ignatian perspective (which views God as present in all things and our task as determineing what is our role in God's plan of salvation for the world), I think law school needs to be viewed as a 3-year process of discernment of who our students will be in the world and how they will participate in God’s plan for the salvation of the world. That means that a Catholic and Jesuit law school is about more than simply producing fine lawyers. (Of course it has to also do that, but it can’t be doing just that.) The implication is that those of us involved in Catholic and Jesuit law schools need to continually ask ourselves: what are we doing to help students discern their place and their vocation? What are we doing to help them discover who they are and how they should live their lives.  During my presentation, I talked a little about some of the things we do at the University of St. Thomas to do just that.

I then spent some time talking about the ways in which my scholarship in recent years has addressed the intersection of Catholic thought and the law.  After the three presentations, we had some lively discussion (followed by a wonderful dinner and great conversation). 

I hope this program was the beginning of continuing dialogue at Loyola on this important subject.  As I said at the end of my talk, there are a lot of ways a Catholic and Jesuit law school and implement its tasks re formation aand transmission of the Catholic intellectual tradition.  The Catholic and Jesuit identiy can mean a lot of things.  But it can't mean nothing.  There has to be some intentional effort to live out the religious mission of the school.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

A Tree Grows in Oklahoma City

Re Michael S.'s reminder  of the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing: while visiting them last spring, Michael and his wife, Maria, took me to visit the site.  Many things about the visit moved me, but one of most powerful parts of the experience for me was the American Elm tree standing on the plaza, called the "Survivor Tree" becuase it remarkably continues to grow despite its proximity to so much that was destroyed in the bombing.  During this Easter season, it stands as a wonderful reminder of resurrection.  I talk a bit about the symbolism of the tree in a reflection I posted here.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Easter Triduum

This evening begins the three day period referred to as the Easter Triduum.  Those of us who are Catholics on this blog often disagree on any number of issues, as our posts make quite clear.  But what we pray with and celebrate on these days is something we share as members of one faith - the central events of Christ's life: the Last Supper (about which I reflected at more length this morning here), Christ's crucifixion and time in the tomb and, most fundamentally, His Resurrection.  While I am not suggesting we put aside our differences (or suspend talking about them), I do encourage us to spend time reflecting during these days on God's incredible love made manifest in the events we celebrate.

Have a blessed Triduum.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Will v. Intellect and SSM

I've been trying since this morning to find some time to respond to Robert Araujo's post of this morning, criticizing the Iowa decision invalidating a ban on same-sex marriage.  I have difficulty understanding the distinction he draws between will and intellect as saying anything other than it is will he disagrees with the arguments raised in the decision.  In my view, the support he gives for his distinction is more than a little questionable.

His post suggests two things he labels products of the will rather than products of reason.  The first is his criticiam of the court's "conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesom environmnet as opposite-sex couples."  It is not clear why he calls that conclusion a product of will rather than reason except for his disagreement with it.  I'm guessing it has something to do with his suggestion that the research relied on by the court is not "specified or identified."  Yet, interestingly, his subsequent post replying to Rob's response to his earlier post offers no evidence for why "it is clear from [his] point of view, [that] same-sex couples cannot offer, in spite of all best efforts, what the opposite-sex couple can to children."  I'm finding it difficult to understand why his conclusion here is any more a product of intellect (or less a product of will) than the court's conclusion on this issue.

His second piece of evidence is the court's discussion of "Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage."  He characterizes the court as suggesting that "not all religious views are impermissible."  However, the court does not say, as he suggests it does, (a) some religions oppose; (b) religion is not a permissible basis; but (c) some religions reach the opposite conclusion and we rely on those.  Instead, the court says (a) some religious groups oppose; (b) some relgious groups reach the opposite conclusion; and (c) this contrast of opinions supports not using religious based rationales to test a statute's constitutionality.  I agree that Robert's characterization of the opinion makes it sound silly; it is, however, not an accurate characterization.

 

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Civility and Mutual Respect among "Conservative" and "Progressive" Catholics

The initial spark for the current ongoing discussion about "conservative" and "progressive' Catholics was a concern over the tone of a particular post.  One of the historical strengths of this site has always been out ability to disagree - sometimes forcefully - without personal attack and insult.  At least some of us have been concerned in recent months that that is less true now than it once was.  While I appreciate that perceptions as to whether a post is unacceptably offensive will vary, it is good to remind ourselves periodically of our need as Christians to maintain a tone and stance of civility, mutual respect and brotherly/sisterly love as we conduct our conversations.  In that vein, I think Amy's  post yesterday is particuarly welcome both regarding how one ought to react to another's post and how one ought to frame one's own response.

As to the direction we've veered in the discussion, I think a number of the posts demonstrate the difficulty of characterzing people.  Part of that is that there are different things going on: political conservatism or liberalism (or progressivism), degree of adherence to the Magisterium, differences in interpretation of the Magisterium, and many people don't fall neatly into one category or another.  So I've been very nervous at various people's attempts (either in posts or private e-mails over the past few days) to count up how many people are one one side or another, totally apart form the presumption involved in the characterization.

In any event, I trust we all agree that however one measures it, the site can not perform its function unless there is a broad diversity of views being actually expressed in our posts. 

Monday, January 19, 2009

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today we celebrate MLK Day, in recognition of the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to end racial segregation and other forms of racial discrimination through nonviolent means.  On the day of his actual birthday, I posted on my blog an excerpt from King's 1956 imaginary letter from St. Paul to American Christians, in which St. Paul urges us to keep our "moral advances abreast" with our scientific advances.  It is a letter worth reading as we all struggle with living in the world without being conformed to the world.

(I also posted today an excerpt from another King sermon, titled Garden of Gethsemene.) 

Friday, December 5, 2008

Religious Freedom and Head Scarves

The European human rights court yesterday uanimously rejected the complaint of two French Muslim girls who were expelled from school for refusing to remove their head scarves.  Although I haven't read the opinion, Reuters reports that the court determined that "the school had done its best to balance the interests of the girls with respect for France's secular model, and their expulsion was a consequence of their refusal to respect rules of which they had been properly informed."

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Another Response to Sodomy and Civil Rights

MOJ-reader Jonathan Watson sends this response to David Weiss's piece on committed same-sex relationships and sodomy:

" Dear Prof. Weiss,

"I find your piece on committed same-sex relationships interesting, though I think flawed in its reasoning. You begin with the premise that, "Not in this text—nor in any other biblical text—is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Not one. Not anywhere. There are a small handful of texts that condemn same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, and perhaps military rape and pederasty. But nowhere in the Bible is there a single word that condemns committed same-sex relationships." In your bare assertion, I believe you are correct. Nowhere in the Bible is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships, and in fact, the legal use of the term sodomy in our country might be mistaken in the reference to the Sodomites. In fact, I suspect Christ  lauds (for example) two brothers living together, raising an orphan. However, since your email / post specifically refers to homosexual couples and Prop. 8, it is worth noting what the Bible says about same-sex relations. I believe I can safely assume that you do not separate same-sex coupling from sexual activity.
 
"To begin with some examples from the bare text, Leviticus 18:22 states: "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:24 reiterates the command even more strongly. It is even repeated in Leviticus 20:13, which states "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."  Second, the men of Sodom sought to "know" Lot's guests in the Bible. One could argue that he simply sought to defend their guest rights, but the point is very debatable. St. Paul understood this in writing to the Corinthians that "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." If that is not enough, St. Paul condemns homosexuality more directly in Romans, saying, "And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error."
 
"I believe that suffices for a bare textual argument against homosexual acts. It is interesting to note that the New Testament contains more direct condemnation (as in divorce) against homosexual acts. Oddly, there is no mention of pagan temple prostitution, military rape, or pederasty (except as other sins, of course). Turning to some of the earliest Christian writers, we find their understanding that the various texts outlined above DID refer to homosexual acts. For a Catholic, it is impossible to ignore the interpretation of these writers.
 
"So, while I agree that using majoritarian power is unjust to certain ends (sending all homosexuals to live in camps in western deserts, for example), it is not acting as a Sodomite to refuse to enable, or refuse to bless with legal entitlement and recognition, sinful action."

Christianity, Same-Sex Relations and Prop 8

This following thought-provoking piece originated in an e-mail by the author and has been posted on various internet sites.  With the permission of Mr. Weiss, I reproduce it here:

Sodomy and civil rights, David R. Weiss, November 7, 2008

"This country has a sodomy problem. And until we have the wisdom and the courage to be honest about what that means we’re not going to resolve the question of civil rights for homosexuals. We need to be clear about why sodomy is such a threat to the common good of civil society, why it undermines the family, and why it is such an evil when afoot in faith communities. It’s not going to be easy. But it needs to be done.

The word “sodomy” comes from a biblical text (Genesis 19) where the ancient city of Sodom is marked out for divine destruction because its evil ways so angered God. Sodomy names those who act like the inhabitants of Sodom.

Fine. But listen carefully. Not in this text—nor in any other biblical text—is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Not one. Not anywhere. There are a small handful of texts that condemn same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, and perhaps military rape and pederasty. But nowhere in the Bible is there a single word that condemns committed same-sex relationships.

To vote on Proposition 8 in California, or on any of the other state initiatives seeking to ban same-sex marriage, based on the Bible is the moral equivalent of using biblical texts to support slavery or apartheid. It is obscene.

So having cleared that up, let’s talk about the real problem here: sodomy. Acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.

The prophet Isaiah (1:10-17; 3:9-15) knew something about the reputation of those who lived in Sodom. He says they despised justice, especially for widows and orphans—those at the edges of family structures in the ancient world. And he says they built an economy that stole the goods of the poor. Likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (16:49) was also acquainted with the sodomy “lifestyle.” He rails against them because in the midst of their abundance they were indifferent to the needy.

Even Jesus, some 2000 years after its destruction, can employ a reference to Sodom with full effect. Twice (Matthew 11:19-24 and Luke 10:12) he invokes the memory of Sodom as a city condemned for its treatment of the marginalized and its lack of hospitality to sojourners.

For both the Hebrew prophets and the Christian Messiah sodomy is not about acting on same-sex attraction; it is clearly and unequivocally about social injustice and horrendous breeches of hospitality, of which the attempted gang rape of Lot’s guests is simply one final bit of damning evidence.

Sodomy, understood biblically, is the sin of creating social structures that systematically isolate those already at the margins of society. It is roundly condemned by the prophets and by Jesus. And for good reason. It destroys the fabric of families by teaching even the youngest children to dehumanize persons simply because of difference.

It undermines the common good of society by scape-goating a minority in ways that contradict the very ideals we claim to hold in a democracy. And it is simply an unforgiveable evil in faith communities where it betrays the very messages of justice, mercy, and compassion that are at the heart of religious faith.

So let’s be clear: the desire to close off the protections afforded by marriage to persons living in committed same-sex relationships (and to their children) is itself an act of sodomy and it has no place in civil society or in communities of faith.

Further, when African-Americans and Hispanics vote in large numbers alongside conservative white Christians to ban same-sex marriage they ally themselves with the same strand of Christianity that in the past quoted other biblical texts just as effectively to justify genocidal policies toward Native Americans, xenophobic laws toward immigrants, and abominations like slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid.

So, yes, this country has a sodomy problem. But so long as we think it has anything to do with gay sex we’ve missed the point of God’s outrage. Sodomy happens when any group uses their majority or their power to abuse and marginalize another group. That’s what happened in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas on November 4. And it’s time for us, as citizens and as Christians, to stop acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.

David Weiss is a theologian, writer, poet and hymnist committed to doing “public theology” around issues of sexuality, justice, diversity, and peace. His first book is To the Tune of a Welcoming God: Lyrical reflections on sexuality, spirituality and the wideness of God's welcome (2008 / www.davidrweiss.com). He lives with his wife and children in St. Paul, MN."

Friday, November 21, 2008

Mary Daly, RIP

I join with my former colleagues at St. John's University School of Law, and with her many other friends and academic colleagues in mourning the death of Dean Mary Daly.

I've tried twice to link to the St. John's press release without success.  So following is the statement of St. John's University President Donald Harrington, C.M.:

"Our University community is saddened by the death of Mary C. Daly, Esq., Dean of the School of Law and John V. Brennan Professor of Law and Ethics. Since coming to St. John’s in 2004 from Fordham, where she served as James H. Quinn Professor of Law, Director of the Graduate Program, and co-Director of the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, she has been an energetic and effective leader. We shall miss her presence among us and will be forever grateful for all that she has been and done for us.

"Her impact on the School of Law has been nothing short of transformative. She established a global focus within the School through the creation of new academic programs and initiatives. Among these was the L.L.M. program in U.S. Legal Studies for Foreign Law School Graduates, launched in fall of 2008, that provides opportunities for lawyers from other nations to achieve a grounding in the United States legal system. Another is a program that permits St. John’s Law School students to spend a summer studying in Rome. She also increased the number of law clinics, which provide students with invaluable opportunities for both practical experience and service to underserved individuals within the community.

"She infused within the faculty a desire to enhance their scholarly and professional development activities. And she did so by example. An accomplished and prolific scholar with a national and international reputation,  she published widely in law journals and also authored several books. In addition, she broke ground through her expertise in the emerging discipline of transnational ethics, a field which has assumed increasing prominence with mergers among Asian, American, and European law firms to form a truly global legal community.

"Her outreach to alumni was extraordinarily effective. She traveled throughout the country, hosting receptions and other meetings designed to keep graduates abreast of activities at their alma mater.  And she increased gifts to the School of Law substantially during her tenure as Dean.

"I know that members of our University community will want to share their memories of Dean Daly, to come together to remember her at the prayer service slated for next Tuesday, and to pray with her family at the wake and at the funeral service which we will hold on campus on a date that will be announced soon. I am sure I speak for all of us in extending our deepest sympathy to her family as well as our appreciation to them for sharing her with us. St. John’s is a stronger and better University because she was part of it."

Rev. Donald J. Harrington, C.M.
President, St. John’s University