If Sunday was the Feast of Christ the King, then Advent is just around the corner, prompting each of us to ask: What am I doing to help birth Christ into the world.
My friend John Freund over at famvin has been focusing attention on systemic change as a means to address poverty. As Advent approaches, he shares the thought that the "first Christmas set off the greatest systemic change ever when God became one with us - in a stable no less: What a scandal! God became one with us." He desribes in his post an international movement called the "Advent Conspiracy", a movement "dedicated to restoring the scandal of Christmas by worshipping Jesus through compassion, not consumption." Their website is here.
The preliminary results of a John Jay College study on the sexual abuse crisis, presented to the American bishops during their meeting in Baltimore this week, show that sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy reflects "overall changes in behavior, attitudes, and media representations in American society" rather than "something distinctive about the Catholic church that led to the sexual abuse of minors."
While some apparently took comfort in the fact that the behavior or Catholic priests was not worse than anyone else's, Cardinal George made some comments about religion and society that are worth serious thought:
"The more interesting question, though, is whether or not the church herself, and particularly the priests and bishops, should be held to a moral standard that is higher than that of the general populace. That was raised by one bishop very astutely, saying that we should not be relieved to find out that our own standards just conform to what is the normal behavior, what has become so in the last several decades.
"Speculatively, and I'm not sure whether you're interested in the question or not, but [the results of the study] point to a sociological thesis or question: Is religion an independent variable? Or is it simply reduced to a cultural reality that can be explained in terms of something other than religion itself? If that's the case, then the secularists shouldn't be disturbed about religion, because it has nothing original to say anyway, and it's not going to impose itself on anybody's behavior. That's a very important question. It's not going to be decided here, and I don't know the answer to it. I have different answers depending upon which sociologist I talk to. I think that however this thing finally turns out, it will inform the larger issues that are now before us in this country about secularism, the influence of religion in society, and all those good questions that we're not going to discuss directly here."
See John Allen's current NCR column for a more detailed report of the study and the bishops' reaction.
With respect to Fr. Araujo, I must disagree with his claim that the Millennium Development goals have been corrupted or compromised based on the evidence he cites. The one goal he appears concerned with (there are eight goals, including reducing poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education and ensuring environmental sustainability) is the fifth goal: "improving maternal health." He raises a concern with the discussion of the achievement of that goal in the 2007 MDG report (which can be accessed here), in particular with a passage that suggests that the "vast majority of maternal deaths and disabilities could be prevented through appropriate reproductive health services before, during and after pregnancy, and through life-saving interventions should complications arise." However, the bulk of what is discussed immediately following that language has to do with the need for "skilled health personnel (doctors, nurses, midwives) who are trained to detect problems early" and who can provide pregnant women with obstretric care and with disparties in antenatal care. It is true that the report also says that reducing unwanted pregnancies could avert a significant number of maternal deaths, including those resulting from unsafe abortions (a claim that seems fairly obvious) and talks about "an unmet need for family planning." In my view, neither the text nor the context of this section of the report seems to me fairly characterized as evidence that "the MDGs have become a pawn for those interest groups that have been laboring for a universal right to abortion."
Seven years ago, the international community declared a goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. While some progress has been made, it appears that those most in need are being left behind. The International Food Policy Research Institute has just issued a report, The World's Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger. The report (available here) is sobering. Of the one billion people in the world living on less than $1/day, 162 million live in "ultrapoverty", that is, less than 50 cents/day. Those ultra-poor are "overwhelmingly" concentrated in Sub-Sahara Africa. While substantial progress has been made in attaining the Millennium Development Goals in some areas (e.g., in East Asia and the Pacific), there has been an increase in the number of people living in all categories of poverty, particularly ultrapoverty, in the Sub-Sahara. If current trends continue, improvements "will largely exclude a large share of the world's absolute poorest." The report discusses the characteristics of the poorest, some of the reasons for the dismally slow progress in reducing ultrapoverty, and makes recommendations as to interventions necessary to move the poorest out of poverty.
There are no easy answers here, but the Millennium Development Goals are worthy ones. The IFPRI report is important in reminding us that "[a]s the world moves toward achieving the Millennium Development Goal of cutting hunger and poverty in half, it cannot be content to focus only on the marginally poor and hungry - the desperate, grinding poverty of the world's absolute poorest must also be assuaged."
Several weeks ago, there were several posts (see here, here and here) about the SCHIP debate and how the Catholic faithful ought to respond. I agree there are matters of judgment in how we address this situation, but I hope we can agree that we face a serious problem in this country with respect to ensuring the health of our children. As Congress continues to seek agreement on a revised bill that would survive a presidential veto, let us keep in the front of our minds the fact that 9 million children in this country lack health insurance, about 70% of whom live in families with incomes below 200% of the poverty line. Approximately one-third of those children without medical insurance go without medical care for an entire year. Not surprisingly, uninsured children are substantially more likely to miss school and to have untreated vision problems, making it more likely they will fall behind in school. (See here for some of these statistics.)
Zenit news reports today that this past Friday, a delegation led by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty and the Community of Sant'Egidio delivered a petition to the United Nations signed by 5 million people from 154 countries calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty. The leader of the delegation expressed the view that "the death penalty lowers the state and civil sociaty to the level of a killer, and that while some defend a culture of life, they wind up legitimating a culture of death." Permanent observer of the Holy See to the U.N., Archbiship Celestino Migliore, stated that the death penalty "undermines human dignity" and that "the right to life is the proper context in which to deal with the [death penalty] becuase if we respect life in all its stages -- from the womb to the tomb -- we really can adequately resolve the issue."
Zenit further reports that the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee is expected to vote on the moratorium later this month. A positive vote there would result in a vote being put to the General Assembly of the U.N. in December.
Within the past couple of weeks, we have had several posts regarding Catholic thought and the death penalty, including the question whether our creation in the image of God demands opposition the death penalty.
Zenit news reported October 31 on recent comments of Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. In a meeting last week with the president of the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, Martino said that "Christians are called to cooperate for the defense of human rights and for the abolition of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against the human person in time of peace and in case of war." He said that these practices "are grave crimes against the human person, created in the image of God, and a scandal for the human family in the 21st century."
MOJ readers in the New York area will be interested in a program entitiled: Immigration Policy and Catholic Social Teaching: Can We Work it Out?, to be held on Tuesday, November 13, at The Church of St. Ignatius Loyola. The program is being co-sponsored by the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola and the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, and will explore the question of "[h]ow do we link our Catholic Faith with its venerable tradition of social teachings to the challenges that the immigration debate in our country poses for us." The co-hosts for the program are Gerald R. Blasczcak, S.J., Pastor of St. Ignatius Loyola and Gasper F. Lo Biondo, S.J., Director of the Woodstock Theological Center, and the panelists are Donald Kerwin, Director of Catholic Legal Immigrant Network, Inc. of the USCCB and Carmen Maquilon, Program Director at Catholic Charities Immigrant Services, Diocese of Rockville Center. The program, which begins at 7:30 p.m. will be held in Wallace Hall at the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola, 980 Park Avenue (between East 83 and 84 Street), New York, New York.
In response to my post re-raising Eduardo's questions on the Church's teachings on the legality of abortion and certain abortion-practices, MOJ friend John Breen wrote to me about two recent articles of his that will soon be available on SSRN: John Paul II, the Structure of Sin and the Limits of Law (forthcoming in the St. Louis University Law Journal) and Modesty and Moralism: Justice, Prudence and Abotion - A Reply to Skeel and Stuntz (forthcoming in the Harvard Journal of Law and Publis Policy). He writes:
"In the latter half of the first piece, I address the historical record regarding the incidence of abortion prior to the state reform efforts in the late 1960s and early 1970s and Roe. Without settling on a definitive number, the available empirical evidence effectively refutes the claims of those who maintain that legalization had no effect on the frequency of the procedure. Indeed, Planned Parenthood's own numbers show that both the abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 100 known pregnancies in a given year) and the abortion rate (the number of women per 1000 between 15-44 years of age having an abortion in a given year) steadily climbed in the years following Roe, and that the actual number of abortions per year likewise steadily increased following Roe, surpassing even the exaggerated estimates of annual abortions prior to Roe advanced by abortion advocates.
"In the second piece I restate some of this critique. Beyond this, however, I also argue against those (including many Catholic commentators) opposed to any use of criminal sanctions in the regulation of abortion. Those who argue for a "culture first" approach also frequently advocate for the use of law in its non-coercive dimension, for a greater allocation of resources directed toward women with unexpected and unwanted pregnancies. Although I support such measures because solidarity demands that we support such women and their children (both born and unborn) I also show that it is unlikely that greater financial resources will have little effect on the incidence of abortion. A comparison of abortion rates and ratios in other developed countries (such as Sweden, Canada, England, and France) that have far more elaborate social service networks, strongly suggests that such measures will have only a marginal effect. Instead, I argue for a multi-faceted approach in which culture and law (including both the criminal law and law in its non-coercive dimensions) are employed in support of unborn human life and pregnant women and mothers.
"As for Eduardo' hypothetical, if true - if law has no effect on the frequency of the practice - it would, I dare say, be the first instance of that in the history of jurisprudence. Indeed, even the much maligned legal apparatus known as Prohibition was (as modern scholarship conrfirms) was successful in that it significantsly reduced the amount of alcohol consumed by Americans by upwards of 40 percent. of couse this raises a host of prudential questions: Would a reduced incidence of abortion be worthwhile even though absolute compliance with the law would not be achieved? Accordingly, I take up the subject of prudence and its relationship to justice at length in the second piece."
MOJ reader, Josiah Neele, e-mailed me in response to my post about Eduardo's questions to express the view that Eduardo's hypotherical questions lack practical relevance because, "[c]ontrary to the Guttmacher-WHO study, legalizing abortion does increase the number of abortions performed." He writes:
"Granted, working through the implications of a hypothetical situation can be useful even if you konw the situation does not obtain. But not always. Justinian, apparently, thought that homosexuality caused earthquakes. No doubt if homosexuality did cause earthquakes, this would have some serious public policy implications. But is it really worth taking the time and effort to figure out what those implications might be? I think not. the same goes, I think, for Prof. Penalaver's questions."
Implicit in my prior post is the conviction that addressing Eduardo's "if" question is a worthwhile expenditure of time given the centrality of the question of the relationship between morality and law to our collective effort to articulate a Catholic legal theory. But Josiah's e-mail prompts me to wonder whether others view the question as a hypothetical not worth pursuing in the absence of more clarity regarding what the data shows.
