The Council of Science Editors organized a "Global theme Issue on Poverty and Human Development" in order to encourage research on the subject and to disseminate that research to the widest possible audience. Science journals were invited to simultaneously publish articles on poverty and human development on October 22, 2007. The result was 750 articles published in 235 science journals from 37 countires on a broad range of topics relating to the impact of poverty on health, the challenges of porviding adequate medical care to the poor, and the ability of various health initiatives to reduce poverty. MOJ readers engaged in analyses of poverty and health will want to check out the Council's website (here), which describes the project and contains a partial list of the articles published. The Council has urged the journals to make the global theme published articles available to the public for free; some can be accessed online from the Council's website.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Poverty and Human Development
Immorality vs. Illegality of Abortion
A couple of weeks ago, Eduardo raised some questions prompted by the Guttmacher-WHO study on abortion. He asked whether if making abortion illegal would not reduce the incidence of abortion, but only make abortions more dangerous, would that give cause to rethink, not the morality of abortion, but the connection between views on morality and views on legality. More broadly, he asked whether Catholic legal theory requires a particular legal conclusion regarding the morality of certain abortion practices, divorced from a consideration of the effects of whatever action it is concluded must be taken.
I don't know if Eduardo has received any private responses to his inquiries, but I have been disappointed not to see anyone publicly (at least here) take a stab at these questions, which I think are important and difficult ones. The question of the (im)morality of abortion is an easy one. But the question the law ought to do in the face of that immorality raises a host of prudential considerations. I think if we are going to advance the debate on abortion in a meaningful way, we need to give greater consideration to questions such as those raised by Eduardo.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Creed and "What does it mean?"
I have looked at Fr. Araujo's post several times, trying to determine how far it advances us in the inquiry of conveying what it means to be a Catholic law school. He suggests we need to take stock of the Creed, our profession of faith, when talking with faculty candidates who wish to teach at a Catholic school.
I'm going to guess that most Catholics (including a lot of Catholic academics) don't spend a lot of time reflecting on what they are affirming when they recite the Creed at Mass every week. How many people, for example, examine seriously what it means when they affirm a belief in God the Father, the maker of heaven and earth? (By the way, Michael Himes, in the chapter on Baptism in a slim volume called The Mystery of Faith does, I think, a beautiful job of discussing the implication of this affirmation.)
Second, even among Catholics who spend time reflecting on the meaning of the different elements of the Creed, I suspect there will be some variance in the understanding of what those elements mean, not only in terms of their own beliefs, but in term of the life of a law school.
If I am right about that, then what is the conversation that is to occur during the hiring process? How does the Creed help us to identify to others, in a more meaningful way than the ways Rick suggests don't quite satisfy, who we are as a Catholic law school?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Helen Prejean and the Death Penalty
The University of St. Thomas Law School community was today treated to a talk by Sr. Helen Prejean, of Dean Man Walking fame, who has spent the last 20 years walking with people on death row, and who gives about 140 talks a years around the country in an effort to foster public discussion of the death penalty.
S. Helen started by stressing the need to go beyond theoretical discussions of the death penalty and focus on the practicalties of how it is administered. What does it say, she wonders, that in 8 out of 10 cases where the death penalty is the punishment, the victims of the crimes in question are white? Or what does it say that 10 states in the South account for 80% of U.S. executions. (Texas alone accounts for about 40%.) Or that those sentenced to the death penalty are most likely poor? She also taked about innocent defendants, the subject of her new book, The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions. She laments, in this context, how difficult it is for particularly the poor to mount an effective defense and how difficult it is to succeed in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. None of these arguments are new, but that does not make them any less compelling.
Ultimately, however, she argues that death as a punishment is inconsistent with the dignity of the human person and criticizes politicians and others who push us to believe that the only way to honor the family of victims of heinous crimes is by killingl the perpetrator. She also suggests that in accepting the death penalty we not only harm the dignity of the defendant, but that we demean ourselves as well when we accept that the intentional killingn of another human being is not an act of cruelty. She also talks in her book about "the corrosive effects on the souls of those who carry out the killings."
Rick asks whether there is a death penalty moratorium in effect. If there is not, there should be.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Duquesne and Planned Parenthood
We've had discussion on this blog at various times and in various contexts regarding Catholic Universities and their sponsorship of certain speakers and events. The New York Times reported this morning that a Pittsburgh public radio station stopped running messages from Planned Parenthood becuase Duquesne University, the licence holder of the radio, determined that Planned Parenthood was "not aligned with our Catholic identity." The article appears here.
From the article, it appears that Duquesne founded the public radio station 58 years ago. During a pledge drive, the following message was run: "Support for DUQ comes from Planned Parenthood, providing comprehensive sexuality education, including lessons on abstinence. Planned Parenthood: Their mission is prevention."
Leave aside whether the message is an accurate statement of Planned Parenthood's mission, since that does not appear to be the issue. Rather, the question raised is "whether the station's news content is independent and, ultimately, whether the station should separate itself from Duquesne." The station has received a significant number of calls and e-mails objecting to its decision to stop running the ads and questioning its "editorial integrity."
I'm interested in the views of others on this. It seems to me that the debate about what kind of speakers a Catholic university should have on campus and/or should honor is different from the question of what content is appropriate for a public radio station as to which the Catholic university is a licence holder. I'm not making a statement about how either should be resolved (although I confess my general leaning is always in favor of more speech rather than less), but I do think they are different questions and I tend to think there should be less control exercised over a public radio station than in other situations.
Monday, October 15, 2007
More on the Death Penalty
Mike Schutt offers this follow-up to my prior post on the death penalty and our creation in the image of God:.
"1. I do understand the point on the alteration in the way we read the OT; yet, it is clear that God is saying that murderers, at least *then*, where to be put to death because human beings are created in the image of God (again, Gen. 9:6). Unless anthropology has changed, the imago Dei is still the reason it was instituted in the first place, I think.
"2. So, the question is, I guess, how do we find out the *now*? The Gen 9 passage is not part of the Mosaic law that is so difficult to interpret and apply in light of Christ's death and resurrection. Yet even the Sermon on the Mount (a portion of which you quote in the eye for an eye passage) points not to a relaxation of the OT Mosaic law, but a *higher* standard for meeting the demands of God (for salvation). It speaks nothing to the civil law, other than to say it is not God's standard, perfection is, and it does not advocate abolishing the civil laws, though of course Christ's death does change much of the Mosaic covenant. Do you know of an argument or position that addresses the Noahic covenant or the death penalty in light of the NT? I am not acquainted with arguments regarding treatment of this particular passage or a theological position that would say that the Noahide passages are no longer ap plicable.
"3. To the contrary, Romans 13 speaks of the civil ruler "not bearing the sword in vain" as God's "instrument of wrath." In the face of lack of contrary evidence regarding Genesis 9, I don't see an imago Dei argument.
"4. I would like to explore the possibility that the incarnation may change how we act upon human beings created in the image of God, and the possibility that the Incarnation fundamentally alters the OT approach. I'm not sure it can work, given the explicitness of the passage, but I do understand what you're saying.
"I am not saying that I don't understand the prudential and administrative arguments for abolishment or moratorium-- I'm just trying to get a clear picture of the basis of the imago Dei position and the Catholic theological approach to the Genesis and Romans passages."
Any reactions to Mike's observations?
Death Penalty and Imago Dei
In a recent post on the UN's call for a global moratorium on the death penalty, I stated my belief that "the death penalty is inconsistent with Catholic Social Thought. The dignity of the human person, our creation in God's image, demand that we seek alternatives to the death penalty." MOJ-friend Michael Schutt sent the following in response:
"I'm wondering two things. At bottom, my issue is with the imago Dei being the foundation of opposition to the death penalty, when Scripture teaches that human dignity that comes from being created in God's image is the foundation for the death penalty (Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.") So . . . I have two questions, if you can help:
"Is there any interaction with this passage, that you are aware of,in the current thinking in RC circles? Rick Garnett's excellent piece from a few years' back (which takes the same position that you do)does not mention it. It's not as if this is an obscure part of the Mosaic law-- it's in the Noahic covenant, not Mosaic, and one that theologians see as generally applicable today based on God's promise never to flood the world again.
"In Evangelium Vitae, JP II does start with the principle of imago Dei, but later expressly says that it is only absolute as to "innocent persons" (para. 57). He has to go further than the imago Dei in order to build a case against the death penalty. It seems his clearestnprinciples are based on state "protection" of society and rooting criminal justice theory in rehabilitation and behavior modification (para. 56) (rather than, say retribution). In fact, he concludes his discussion by quoting the Catechism:">"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person". That "IF" says it all: the death penalty would be permissible if necessary to defend society; therefore it is not absolutely--only conditionally-- rooted in the imago Dei, but is instead rooted in a particular theory of the state and of criminal justice.
"It seems to me if the imago Dei compels the death penalty, it cannot be the reason to abolish it. I don't think that this is the teaching of the Church, but it seems to be what many Roman Catholics are saying. Since I'm jumping on a one-sentence post of yours, I understand that I may be completely missing the boat. But I think this has implications for a host of other things that RCs and evangelicals talk past each other about. >Any thoughts?"
I offered the following initial quick reply to Mike's queries:
Self-interest and the Promotion of Justice
Sister Margaret John Kelly, D.C., Executive Director of the St. John's Vincentian Center for Church and Society sent me these thoughts on my observation about the limits of self-interest in promoting social change:
"The whole question of self-interest is a critical one and needs a lot more analysis at the personal and global levels. Too quickly we accept the Ayn Rand definition which is really egotistical and non-relational. I think we also err by looking on self-interest purely in strictly material terms, although that is where it is most obvious and conspicuous.
"Do you think that self-interest may be the stepping stone to awareness and conversion, turning a heart of stone (or of the bottom line) to a heart of flesh? Maybe I am thinking of a developmental alchemy where experience shatters assumptions or humanizes the theoretical, especially the statistical or removed lives which are easy to ignore. For example it may be necessary to gain support from the advantaged for the educationally disadvantaged by stressing the need for employees who are well-trained or for keeping youth off the streets and reducing crime and the potential increased taxes for incarceration, etc. I have seen this work from both points of needing workers but also fearing crime. It has resulted in attitudinal and systemic change and a fair number of educational initiatives and some change of hearts as well I think. It may be the old story that effective communication, as well as evangelization, needs to begin with assessment and start where the people, or at least some of the people, are.
"From another angle ....if we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves (and "as ourselves" is critical to define as is the lived meaning of love as "desiring good for the self and for the other") we can see that "self-interest" is not essentially material nor can it be individual. It will be seen as relational and as social and based in our common humanity. It is a way of honoring God and moving to wholeness personally but also relationally for the common good.
"I myself am just beginning my thinking on the positive aspects of self-interest as a vehicle for personal ihnsight as well as social change because I am one who focused in the past too much on the materially self-interested and the Rand model, but I have been moved recently to reflect on Vincent DePaul who was not above reminding leaders, the aristocray and the hierarchy in 17th century France that civil distress and a growing underclass benefits no one. He knew that heads would roll, literally and figuratively and of course they did for several decades. More in the fire and brimstone style of the day Vincent often reminded the affluent that they would be judged finally on what they did for the poor starving, abandoned infants who would 'stand in judgment on them on the last day.' Matthew 25 is pretty intimidating even today. Vincent hit the earthly motivation as well as the eternal salvation/damnation continuum. Francis DeSales also reminded us that 'more souls are won over by sugar than by vinegar.' Of course, some will challenge that we may be flirting with manipulation in that scenario. While the homily at our closing mass on Saturday warned against the greatest treason, 'doing the right thing for the wrong reason', perhaps some degree of self-interest is at heart 'the marvel and mystery of mere man.'"
The Just and Moral Society
On Saturday I attended and spoke at the biennial Vincentian Chair of Social Justice Conference at St. John's University (colloquially, the "biennial Poverty Conference"), sponsored by the Vincentian Center for Church and Society. The conference theme this year was "The Just and Moral Society: From Ideal to Reality." The day began with a keynote address by John Coughlin, O.F.M., who is on the faculty of Notre Dame Law School. John examined four perspectives on the foundations of a just and moral society: philosophical, theological, ethical and legal. The philosophical and theological discussion focused on the salient features of what it means to be a human person and the understanding of basic human goods derived from practical human reason. He then talked about how the philosophical and theological perspectives shape the ethical and legal structures of a just and moral society.
The keynote was followed by a panel addressing current efforts at the international, national and local levels toward building a just society on behalf of the poor. I was particularly struck by some of the comments made by Hon. Oscar de Rojas, Director of the Financing for Development Office in the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. He argued that, although distributive justice is broadly accepted in the United States, there is a lack of basic acceptance of the concept internationally, which impacts how we treat issues of debt, trade, etc. He also suggested that while human dignity is accepted nationally, it is not thought of globally, with the result that people in one country feel no responsibilty for people on other countries. Thus, actions taken on the international level that appear to promote social goals are thus taken only out when they promote self-interest, not out of a sense of solidarity. (E.g., we'll work to save the Brazilian rainforest because that will prevent NYC from sinking into the Atlantic.)
My first reaction to his comments was to question whether there is, in fact, as broad acceptance of distributive justice in the United States as he suggests. He said, for example, that no one in the United States questions progressive taxation of income, accepting the principle that those that have more should pay more. I'd be intersested in the thoughts of others, but it strikes me that there is far less acceptance of distributive justice than he suggests. Second, it seems clear that self-interest alone is not going to get us where we need to get. Self-interest may work for the rainforest, but it is not going to address situations like Darfur. It seems clear that we have to move beyond reliance on self-interest and be focused on how one develops a broader understanding and embrace of solidarity at the global human level.
The afternoon included six simulataneous workshops on such topics as political participation, sustainable development, health care, education, employment and respect and security. Since I spoke at the program on The Right to and Responsibility for Employment, I can only comment on that and not on the other workshops. The presentations (made by myself and by Milly Bilken, Staff Attorney for the Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center in NY) addressed workers at both ends of the income scale - focusing on both executive compensation and efforts to secure the rights of low-wage workers. The discussion after the presentations was lively and critical of the extent of income and wealth disparity in the country. One question that generated a lot of attention (and one that I suspect MOJ contributors vary in their reaction to) is whether we should care only whether those at the bottom have enough or whether it is also the case, from the perspective of Catholic Thought, that there is a point at the upper end that is enough and beyond which is simply too much.
After the workshops, we all heard from Simon Aban Deng, a Sudanese refugee and former child slave. Deng was abducted at the age of 9 and spent several years as a slave before being reunited with his family. It is hard to believe that in this day there is still a place in the world where slavery is legal, where in Deng's words, one person can be given as a gift to another person. (The person who abducted him, gave him away to another person.) His talk was very moving, very compelling. Speaking about this period of his life is clearly painful for him, but he believes his message is one people need to hear. As he said at one point, "When human beings decide to be silent, the atrocities will go on." Deng's talk was videotaped and I am hopeful we will have internet access to the talk at some point soon.
The day ended with a beautiful Eucharistic Liturgy, celebrated by Thomas McKenna, C.M., Provincial of the Eastern Province of the Vincentians, a perfect ending to a really wonderful day of presentations and reflection.
Immigration from a Gospel Perspective
MOJ readers in the New York area may want to find their way to St. Igantius Retreat House in Manhasset this evening at 7:00 p.m., where Mark Hallinan, S.J., will be giving a talk on Immigration from a Gospel Perspective. Hallinan is the Assistant for Social Ministries of the New York Province of the Society of Jesus and is on the Jesuit Commission for Social and International Ministries which coordinates the work of the Jesuits in the United States on domestic and international social problems. He has kept abreast of immigration developments and will articulate the gospel perspective on the present situation that is often left out of current debate. Natalie Blaney, a counselor for immigrants in NYC will respond to Fr. Hallinan's comments.
St. Ignatius Retreat Hosue is located at 251 Searingtown Road in Manhasset. For more information, call the retreat house at 516-621-8300. A $15 donation is asked of attendees of tonight's event to support the retreat house's ministries.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
