I have not yet read Prof. Leitzel's paper, referred to in Rob's post, but it is hard to see how the robustness principle could be limited. Once one says that state action is justified based on the fact that actors make less than rational choices, that opens a broad sphere in which the state can act to protect one from the personal harms caused by one's irrational choices. Based on irrational choice and level of harm, one can argue that there is more justification for the government to regulate everyone's calorie content and diet than some of the vices Leitzel mentions. I'd also be worried about whose idea of "their own good" is being promoted. I'd be interested in hearing ideas for how the principle (which I agree with Rob is intriguing from the standpoing of promoting human flourishing) could be framed in a way that limits it.
Monday, August 22, 2005
"Robustness" and Regulating Vice
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Evolution and Intelligent Design
At the same time that Bill Frist is urging that schools teach intelligent design as well as evolution (here), Peter Steinfels column in todays NYT's discusses the view of John F. Haught, a Catholic theologian who is a professor of theology at Georgetown that about intelligent design and about the recent Cardinal Schonborn op-ed, that we have discussed previously. Haught stresses the need for a dialogue between science and religion, believing that although "evolutionary theory cannot make ultimate claims about God or cosmic purpose without slipping into a metaphysics beyond its competence...it raises a host of questions that theology must address." Haught criticizes intelligent design theory both because it lacks scientific basis and becuase it does not address those questions. The Steinfels column provides the link for Haught's latest synthesis of his views, his 2004 Boyle lecture, which can be accessed here.
Friday, July 8, 2005
Catholic Law Schools Revisited
We have previously blogged on the question of what it means to be a Catholic Law School, part of the larger question of what defines a Catholic University. John Allen's NCR column this week reports on a meeting of a group of presidents, trustees, administrators and faculty from the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities with Archbishop Michael Miller of the Congregation for Catholic Education as well as Allen's own discussion with Miller.
Miller suggets that "it should be possible for Catholic educators to agree on some measurable "markers" of Catholic identity" that "would provide data in trying to determine how "Catholic" a given institution actually is." These benchmarks include not only concern for social justice, but: sacramental and devotional life, curriculum, percentage of Catholics among faculty, trustees, and staff, religious and doctrinal attitudes of students over time, and practice of the faith.
Obviously there is a difference in what benchmarks one might apply at the undergraduate level and those that might apply at the law school level, but the exercise ot trying to identify benchmarks is equally valuable. Regarding law schools specifically, I just received a reprint of John Breen's "Justice and Jesuit Legal Education: A Critique," 36 Loyola Univ. Chicago L.J. (2005). John argues that "the one indispensable feature that a Catholic and Jesuit law school must have in order to be deserving of the name is to bring the Catholic intellectual tradition to bear on questions of law and justice," a conclusion that would seem equally applicable to Catholic law schools that are not Jesuit.
Susan
Thursday, July 7, 2005
USCCB on the Supreme Court Vacancy
Here is the letter sent by the BIshop Skylstad, current president of the USCCB, to President Bush regarding the qualities the should be considered in selecting replacement for Justice O'Connor. Over at Open Book, Amy Welborn asks whether the letter is helpful or whether it "make[s] the bishops sound as if they think the Supreme Court is a legislative body?"
Thursday, June 2, 2005
More on Law and Religious Arguments
Like Michael P., I substantially agree with Eugene Voloch here. I think part of the difficulty with the criticism of the use of religious arguments is illustrated by the language of the reader Voloch quotes. The reader complains that:
"once someone says "a little man in the sky whom you don't think exists ordered humans not to do something", that ends the debate. I realize that I am being sarcastic, but to the nonbeliever, that is exactly what it means to say that God ordered something. To the nonbeliever, saying God ordered something is no different than someone saying that he was visited by an apparition who ordered him to do something, or that his palm or tarot card reader told him that the spirits have ordered it."
It is the grossest misstatement of those who take religion seriously to say that one's belief is simply a matter of God (I'll ignore for present purposes my views on characterizing God as a man in the sky, little or otherwise) ordering something. Yet that is precisely how opponents of religious argument most often seem to characterize it.
A mature faith is not a matter of externally imposed rules incapable of being understood in rational terms. (My own view is that God "orders" nothing, but, rather, invites us to grow in love and unity with Godself and with others.) Rather, it is about living in accordance with a set of principles aimed at developing our full human potential. Those principles are no less capable of being discussed and argued about than are nonreligious motivations for action.
It may be that some people making religious arguments are not making them well. But I suspect it is also the case that many of those who criticize religious arguments are not really listening to the arguments being made, but are simply operating out of a knee-jerk fear of (and lack of understanding of the nature of) religious arguments.
Susan
Friday, May 6, 2005
Being Catholic
I read with great interest both Greg Sisk’s and Tom Berg’s response to the NPR piece referred to in an earlier posting by Michael Perry. It brought back to me the frustration I felt in the period leading up to the election in November and, in general, with much of the political discourse between the left and the right. I remember observing one day to my spiritual director that it was increasingly the case that, although I have been a registered Democrat since I was first old enough to vote, I had reached a point where I wasn’t sure I was really comfortable calling myself either a Democrat or a Republican. His simple response: You are not a Democrat or a Republican; you are a Catholic.
I think Tom’s statement is absolutely correct – the media does not deal well with nuance. And being “always Catholic,” in Greg’s words, defies easy categorization, making mischaracterization a likely occurrence.
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Call for Papers: The Jurisprudential Legacy of Pope John Paul II
On March 23-24, 2006, St. John’s University School of Law and the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies will sponsor a conference on the Jurisprudential Legacy of Pope John Paul II.
John Paul II enjoyed a 26-year papacy, during which he exerted great influence on both Catholics and non-Catholics. He made a vast contribution to our understanding of the dignity of the human person and of the Church’s social doctrine, and was passionately committed to social justice and to peace. St. John’s and the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies invite papers exploring the legacy of the Pope on law, politics and culture generally and on the development of Catholic legal theory. Papers presented at the conference will be published in the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies.
Paper proposals should be sent by October 1, 2005, to Prof. Susan J. Stabile at [email protected], or at St. John’s University School of Law, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, New York 11439.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Pope John Paul II and Women
Thanks for Rick for the link to Lisa Schiltz's essay, "Why Larry Summers Should Have Had the Pope Review his Draft: THe Implications of John Paul II's Teaching for Gender Balance at Caholic Universities." The essay is much broader than the title suggests - addressing the role of women both within the family and in the workplace (and in the public sphere generally) and I greatly enjoyed reading it.
While there is much that has come out of Rome in recent years that has been upsetting to women, there is, particularly in Mulieris Dignitatem, a recognition of feminine "genius" that has been given too little attention. Professor Schiltz does a nice job exploring Pope John Paul II's statements about women and of the societal obligation to make it possible for women to respond to their callings both within the family and within the public sphere.
She does acknolwedge that "If there were no social evils left to be addressed in this world, clearly, John Paul's preference would be that every mother would choose to dedicate herself full time to child-raising, because no call to make the world a better place in any other way would ever be as compelling. But we're not there yet; John Paul recognized that, and I think that is why he consistently called upon society to make it more feasible for women who are mothers to fully respond to all of the aspects of theri 'complicated calling,' both with repsect to their families, and in the public sphere."
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
New Blog on the Religion Clauses
MOJ readers will be interested in Howard Friedman's new blog, "Religion Clause." Professor Friedman has indicated that his blog will cover current legal, scholarly and political developments relating to free exercise of religion and separation of church and state. It will also link to resources, academic centers, government offices, advocacy organizations, journals and listservs that deal with church-state matters. The blog can be accessed here.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Rhetoric and Reality
One MOJ reader responded to my post earlier today with a fair criticism of my observation that "leaving aside the question whether Congress had any business at all getting involved in the Shiavo matter, it is difficult for people to take seriously the claims of support for the dignity of life made by Republican lawmakers who have at every turn undermined human dignity by their decisions about health care, tax policy and the like." Conor Dugan writes:
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
