The latest issue of the St. John's Journal of Catholic Legal Studies contains a symposium, entitled Can God and Caesar Coexist?, featuring articles by three leading scholars commenting on Robert Drinan's book of that name, as well as his own introduction to the three pieces, which he completed only shortly before his death. The journal issue, dedicated to Drinan's memory, can be accessed here.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Can God and Caesar Coexist?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Law and Religion in the Public Square
St. John's University School of Law hosted a wonderful symposium on Friday on Law and Religion in the Public Square. The keynote speaker, Noah Feldman, offered a compelling analysis of the complex relationships not only between religion and morality, but also between both of those concepts and the American public square. The morning panel asked a fundamental question for American democracy: What is the place of religious conviction in our political life? Although the three speakers advocated three distinct answers, what they all share is a commitment to finding a solution to the challenge of religious diversity—a solution that protects religious freedom, that promotes equal citizenship, and that strengthens our democracy. At lunch, New York Times columnist and Fordham University Professor Peter Steinfels asked whether religious ignorance ought to be considered “a crime against the first amendment.” Whatever the answer to that legal question, his call for deeper and broader religious education is one that we should all take very seriously indeed. Finally, the afternoon panel (which included MOJ'er Rick Garnett) addressed the difficult problem of whether and how our commitment to religious freedom protects not only individuals, but also religious groups and institutions. Can the Bill of Rights sufficiently defend the religious communities that many of us feel are necessary for personal freedom to flourish? The speakers examined this question from various perspectives, including law, international relations, and American history. The proceedings will be published in a forthcoming issue of the St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Reader Response re Canon Law and Marriage
I received the following response from MOJ reader Rob Driscoll to my post concerning Canon Law's recognition of ages 14 and 16 for females and males, respectively, as the age for a valid marriage:
"It seems to me that the case for the age differences (and youth) is two-fold. First, to the extent that normal families are to emulate the Holy Family, we take into consideration that Mary was extremely young (13 or 14 I think is what most believe) while Joseph was not much older (16 – 18). While in today’s society, maturity is put off far longer (sometimes I think it is not until people are in their 30’s!) it is still possible and conceivable for a young couple to marry at a young age, particularly in poorer societies and those which have a shorter life-span. For prudential reasons I can see American or Western Bishops encouraging waiting until 18, but as a general matter it seems that 14 & 16 should form the “floor.”
Secondly, the difference in ages between the sexes (as opposed to one age for both men and women) seems to me to mirror the biological fact or tendency for women to mature earlier then men. This is true in both their capacity to bear or conceive children (women go through puberty first) and their psychological/mental maturity. It seems to me that women tend to mature a couple of years more quickly than men and are thus ready, both biologically and mentally, to bear children first. Since the Church ties marriage to children, the disparity in ages between men and women makes sense."
Canon Law and Marriage
My friend Mary Ann Dantuono, Associate Director of St. John's University's Vincentian Center for Church and Society, has been involved with the UN sessions on Violence Against Women. She raises this for our consideration:
"The Canon Law allows marriage if the woman has reached the age of 14 and the male 16. Acceptable standards world wide at this point recognize that there should be no difference in age and that it should be 18 for both. Could some Catholic legal minds begin to articulate a cohesive argument based on Catholic reasoning that would encourage Canon lawyers to begin the process to change Canon Law."
Canon 1083 indeed views marriage to be valid if the "woman" is 14 and the male 16. Each episcopal conference has the authority to set a higher minimum age as a prohibitive impediment to marriage. Some have apparently done so; e.g., in Canada and New Zealand the age is 18 for both. The USCCB has not acted to set a higher minimum wage.
Any thoughts on the issue?
Engaging Religion as a Worldview
I think there is much truth to Rob's suggestion that what is needed is to engage religion as a worldview and that "if we can get students inside the tradition...they might be able to appreciate the perspective offered by the religious lens, even if they do not adopt it themselves." That has certainly been my experience in teaching my seminar in Catholic Social Thought and the Law over the last couple of years.
The seminar draws both a range of Catholic students (by which I means students who both know a lot about and take their Catholicism seriously and those who were raised Catholic, but whose Catholicism has little impact on their lives) and non-Catholic students. I have had a number of students - Catholic and non-Catholic - come to me at the end of the day and express some version of, "I always thought the Catholics were out to lunch on this issue or that, but now I can understand where their views come from. Once you understand the fundamental principles under which they operate, a lot makes sense. I don't necessarily agree on x or y, but I see where they are coming from."
Both of what Rob defines as essential steps are present in the case of my seminar - i.e., taught by someone who believes the religion is true (even though I don't hide that there are issues on which the Church's position is one with which I struggle) and avoiding the survey approach (although I do encourage non-Catholic students to contribute, if they can, the positions of their own faith on the issues we are discussing).
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Apostolic Exhortation
Although I don't yet see a link to it online, Pope Benedict issued today an Apostolic Exhortation that, among other things, reiterated the non-negotiability of the Church opposition to gay marriage and reaffirmed the Church's law on celibacy in an all-male priesthood. The document also speaks of the duty of Catholic politicians and legislators on issues regarding respect for human life. For Reuters' description, see here.
Update: The link to the document is here. Thanks for MOJ reader Ryan Anderson for sending me the link.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Universal Destination of Goods and Priorities
S. Margaret John Kelly responds as follows to Rick's observation about the universal destination of goods:
"I agree that the universal destination of goods is a difficult concept or principle, but necessary. If we want to juxtapose it to private property, we need to see that need always wins out over possession. However it is difficult to find the landscape or context in which this can be done and create a little bit of human guilt along the way. The story of Dives shows that he wasn't condemned for having wealth but for ignoring those who needed it. It was easier in that story becuase he almost had to walk over them. If we are convinced our lives are "on loan" from the Creator, it is easy to admit that we are not landlord of the Lord's universe of even owner of our own talents.
"I thought of this driving in today when I heard a story about the obscene bonuses that were given on Wall Street this year, particularly the individual who received over 50 million. That is absurd and a good example of social sin with lots of people within that system hoping they will do better next year and so complicitous in a way. Where is the leadership to stem the tide against this generation's robber barons? Egos are weak when they rely upon matter. As the Hindu wrote: 'When our hearts are empty, we fill them with things.'"
Thursday, March 8, 2007
More on Helping the Have-Nots
My friend, S. Margaret John Kelly, who is the Executive Director of our Vincentian Center, says this in response to Rick's post on Helping the Have-Nots:
"[Rick] points to a very basic reality: There will be no global solidarity or justice until there is moral transformation undergirding and permeating the social transformation. For that we will need lived affirmation of the principle of the universal destination of goods and general commitment to pursue the justice and holiness of Matthew 25.
"It is helpful to reflect on what a just and moral community and a larger society would look like as well as what we are willing to do to create one."
How Do we Help?
Rick raises some good questions in his post responding to the statistics I cited. Some initial thoughts on some of them:
First, although I do struggle with the question of how much it is appropriate to spend on myself vs. give away (especially when I make an expenditure I don't regard as a necessary one - e.g. buying a piece of Italian pottery), I don't think it is immoral to buy and eat an ice cream cone instead of giving the money to a water-treatment charity. However, if one regularly indulges in lavish expenditures on oneself rather than engaging in a reasonable amount of charitable giving, I do think there is a moral problem. I'm struggling with the right words - neither "lavish" nor "reasonable" really captures what I mean, but I think it is clear that we each have an obligation to think about how we are using the money we have.
Second, I think the same is true for the government. I think the decision to spend on speculative stem-cell research should be judged in part by what we are not funding becuse of that funding decision.
Third, I don't disagree with Rick that "how do we fix it" is a difficult question, and I wasn't trying to answer it in my initial post. I do, however, think that, as Mark pointed out in a different context, "if CST is to mean anything, it must somehow guide or constrain our choices in a serious way." And that means we have to seriously grapple with the how and can't just throw up our hands and say, "gosh this is hard." (I'm not saying that is what Rick was saying.)
I still haven't answered Rick's "rules, standards, or principles," but the difficulty here suggests the answer has to be standards or principles and not rules.
The Haves and the Have-Nots
Here are some sobering statistics provided by my friend John Freund, C.M., during his homily at mass this morning:
The amount of annual investment needed to completely eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide: $19 billion. Annual expenditures on pet food in the United States and Europe: $17 billion.
The amount of annual investment needed to immunize every child: $1.3 billion. Annual expenditures on ice cream in Europe: $11 billion.
The amount of annual investment needed to provide clean drinking water for all: $10 billion. Annual expenditures on ocean cruises: $14 billion.
The amount of annual investment needed to attain univeral literacy: $5 billion. Annual expenditures on perfumes: $15 billion.
There may be disagreement among adherents of CST as to how certain goals are to be attained, but whether one believes CST provides rules, principles or standards (see Rick's post), I think we can all agree these statistics are a serious indictment of our priorities as a society.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
