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, June 23, 2006

Continuing Exchange with Joel Nichols on "Homeward Bound"

By Amy Uelmen

Amy,

Fair point about the downside of the possibility (and indeed history) of misuse of the "sacrifice" language to exclude women, which I decry as much as you.  In fact, I probably was inartful in using the phrase "sacrificial," for I'm not convinced that caring for children is always and necessarily sacrificial.  While there is some self-sacrifice involved, there is also a self-actualization aspect.   I would contend that success in Hirshman's terms (or even as intellectual stimulation) is  not  the pinnacle of human development and fulfillment.  Rather, attachment and the value of a deep relationship with another person provide better measures for both human development and fulfillment, both in developmental theory and in the Christian account.  It's hard to know how better to encapsulate that than the dependency of a child.

Also, while I join your focus on working toward more just structures in society, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that it is working toward the betterment of children that often achieves those more just structures  (which is a large part of my problem with Hirshman's argument). Rather than marginalizing children and the attendant care for them (which your response certainly does not do), we instead should shift our focus toward children and ask what lifts them up and advances them.  This is true both theologically (as mentioned in my earlier comments) and practically. For example, studies show that the surest way to help lift a child out of poverty around the world is to teach that child's mother to read.  Or, by further example, by focusing on studies that show that children's young brains are literally hard-wired to connect in sustaining relationships with adults (with parents, in faith communities, with teachers, etc.), our attention turns toward the need to establish structures and situations that will provide for exactly that kind of interaction and success for children.

And my response to Joel’s response:

I agree wholeheartedly that to focus on children is a good way to a more human society; but I'm not sure that an exclusive focus on children necessarily gets us to the goal line in terms of changing workplace structures.  First, it can become a provisional thing - accommodations while children are small.  Two, not everyone is a parent - it's important for people without kids to not let work become an idol, either.  I remember a story about a young woman rolling her suitcase to the elevator for a umpteenth time, and another woman says, "let me guess, single,no pets?"  There's an assumption that if you don't have kids your life has to be all about work – and that’s unhealthy too.  I'd also frame the broader solution relationally - but children doesn't capture the whole set of problems.

Response to Joel Nichols / Sacrificial Care

By Amy Uelmen

Joel, I agree that “sacrificial caring” is at the heart of the message of Jesus—but I am also concerned that the language of “sacrifice” has been employed as a powerful vehicle to in effect exclude women from the public sphere.  Not all of Hirshman’s concerns are completely unfounded.   I’d prefer to frame the critique more generally: that it is bad, for the most part, for anyone—mothers, fathers, married or single—to routinely work 12 hours a day, whether that person is a lawyer in an “elite” firm responding to the pressure to meet a billable hours quota, or a person who cobbles together three part-time jobs in order to afford health insurance.  And as a matter of justice and of love, we should be working hard to probe ways to challenge and change these structures which do so much damage not only to individual identity and family life, but also to broader commitments in the community as well.  Amy

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Response to Patrick / The Sounds of Silence

By Amy Uelmen

Re Patrick’s entry on 6/16, “Cardinal McCarrick’s Silence”—and whether it means that efforts come “to nothing”… Just to offer another potential read.  It could be that they’d like to leave room for more personal and more pastoral judgment and action for how to engage Catholics in public life, depending on the circumstances.  I just spend a semester reminding my Catholic Social Thought & the Law students that official institutional documents are not all there is when it comes to thinking about what constitutes the life of the Church – and it seems that in some areas, it might also be that vehicles other than institutional statements might leave more room for listening, understanding, and creating lines of communication and trust.  (Which was, I believe, the upshot of their previous statements).  Amy

Response to Rob / Homeward Bound

By Amy Uelmen

I have a host of questions about Hirshman’s definitions of “flourishing” which seems to be grounded in notions of success according to “elite workplaces” standards.  I think one of the reasons that many women “drop out” is that “success” in many those environment often implies letting work have a totalizing claim over one’s entire life—so that there is little time to nourish family or other relationship, or simply pay more than minimal attention to other aspects of one’s life.  Specifically discussing large law firms, Hirshman muses, “It is possible that the workplace is discriminatory and hostile to family life…” but then continues: “women must take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.”  Does this brand of feminism leave no room at all for a critique of the “elite workplace” structures as less than suited to full human flourishing?  It seems to be that this is also one example of how the concept of “vocation” has been high-jacked—the ground assumption is that work constitutes the entirety of one’s life and their is no meaning (or at least significant meaning) outside of one's work.  For me, all of this runs dangerously close to idolatry—not exactly the path the human flourishing, at least in CST lines.  As I’ve done some initial work on this in “The Evils of Elasticity” reflection on the “part-time” paradox, in large firm practice, which is posted under my name at the side, and now on SSRN.  Amy

Friday, May 19, 2006

Immigration, National Security and a United World

By Amy Uelmen

Following some of the coverage of the recent immigration debates, I have been struck by how the emphasis on the importance of punishing “lawbreakers” often does not consider the harsh circumstances which bring people to immigrate; and by how the conversations often focus exclusively on what is good for the US economy.  Conversations rarely open out into broader responsibility for the economic and political pressures that push families to leave their own countries.  I have posted at the side a brief essay I wrote last year for Living City Magazine after Fordham's February 2005 conference, “Strangers No Longer: Immigration Law & Policy in the Light of Religious Values.”  It works with the invitation to conversion, solidarity, and communion as articulated in his John Paul II’s 1999 Letter to the Church in America and other documents.  The papers from the conference will be published in a forthcoming “Law & Religion” volume of the Detroit-Mercy Law Review, and will include Michael Scaperlanda's keynote.  Amy

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The Evils of "Elasticity”: Professionalism and the Part-Time Paradox

By Amy Uelmen

I have just posted under my name an article recently published as part of the Fordham Urban Law Journal Symposium on Professional Challenges in Large-Firm Practice, The Evils of “Elasticity”: Reflections on the Rhetoric of Professionalism and the Part-Time Paradox in Large Firm Practice.  The title comes from a wonderful text in C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength (the third novel in his “space trilogy”) in which he described a young sociologist’s slide into the evil “National Institute of Coordinated Experiments” (N.I.C.E) which is plotting to submit the entire world to a totalitarian regime.  I hope I don’t overstretch the analogy, but I couldn’t resist seeing the text as a helpful vehicle to explore the deep seated cultural tensions that obstruct open, creative and productive conversations about work-life balance in large law firms.  The essay submits that lurking beneath some of the resistance to descriptions of law as a business and some of the rhetoric of loyal dedication to client service, is the evil of “elasticity,” in which the all-consuming demands of the workplace gradually corrode hope for a more harmonious and balanced life.  Based on that text, the analysis then flags the dark side of seemingly positive and constructive concepts in professional rhetoric such as “calling” or “vocation,” “commitment,” and “service.”  Unlike most of my other work, religion is something of a subtext in this piece, appearing as one of many possible anchors and guides for one’s professional life.  Thanks to many of you for your helpful comments on the draft, and especially to Mark for having me down to Villanova last fall to discuss the draft with his faculty.  Amy

Friday, April 21, 2006

Abortion / Condoms - Interview with Card. Martini

By Amy Uelmen

In this week’s The Word from Rome column, John Allen includes an interesting report of L'espresso magazines exchange between Dr. Ignazio Marino, an Italian transplant surgeon at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former archbishop of Milan.  Several of the issues tie into our recent discussions about the move from clear moral prohibitions into the the complexities of forming public policy.  The excerpts cover artificial reproduction and embryo adoption - here are a few excerpts on abortion:

On abortion, Martini firmly upheld the moral teaching of the church, but acknowledged the complexity of writing it into public policy.  "It seems to me difficult [to imagine] that, in situations like ours, the state would not distinguish between acts that are punishable in a penal fashion, and acts for which a penal solution doesn't make sense," he said. "That doesn't mean a 'license to kill,' but that the state doesn't intervene in every possible case. Its efforts should be to reduce the number of abortions, to impede them with every means possible (above all after a certain period from the beginning of the pregnancy), to reduce the causes of abortion, and to take precautions so that women who decide to take this step, especially during the period when it's not illegal, do not suffer grave physical damage or have their lives placed at risk."

Martini noted that the risk of serious physical injury is especially grave in the case of clandestine abortions, and hence said that, all things considered, Italy's abortion law -- which permits abortion during the first trimester -- has had the positive effect of "contributing to the reduction and, eventually, elimination" of back-alley procedures.

In a case in which a fetus threatens the life of the mother, Martini said "moral theology has always sustained the principle of legitimate defense and of lesser evil," in order to justify a procedure that would save the life of the mother while terminating the pregnancy.

And excerpts which tie into our discussion on the use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS:

Similarly, asked about the use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, Martini responded: "Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil," mentioning the case of a couple where one partner is infected and the other isn't.

The problem, Martini said, isn't really the ethical analysis. The problem is the PR headaches that follow whenever a church official says this out loud. To put it bluntly, anytime a senior church official says that use of a condom might be a "lesser evil" in the context of a deadly disease, the next day's headlines trumpet "Church okay with condoms," which is not the same message.

"The question is really if it's wise for religious authorities to propagandize in favor of this method of defense [from HIV/AIDS], almost implying that other morally sustainable means, including abstinence, are put on a lower level," Martini said. "The principle of a 'lesser evil,' applicable in all the cases covered by ethical doctrine, is one thing; another thing is who ought to express these judgments publicly."

In upholding the moral tolerability of condoms as a "lesser evil" in the context of HIV/AIDS, Martini joins Cardinal George Cottier, theologian of the Papal Household under John Paul II; Cardinal Godfriend Danneels of Belgium; Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health; Cardinal Cormac Muphy-O'Connor of Westminster, England; and Bishop Kevin Dowling of South Africa.

In 2004, the Indian bishops launched an awareness campaign about HIV/AIDS that includes information on condoms, and in 2005, a spokesperson for the Spanish bishops said that condoms might be justified in some circumstances to combat the disease.

Msgr. Angel Rodriguez Luño, an Opus Dei priest, a professor at Santa Croce University in Rome and a consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has said there's actually not much debate over the theology; most moralists, he said, believe the argument for condoms as a lesser evil is fairly clear. The question is how to explain that conclusion in a way that doesn't seem to offer a free pass for irresponsible sexual behavior.

"The problem is, anytime we try to give a nuanced response, we see headlines that say, 'Vatican approves condoms,' Rodriguez Luño told The Washington Post Jan. 23, 2005.

"The issue is more complicated than that. From a moral point of view, we cannot condone contraception. We cannot tell a classroom of 16-year-olds they should use condoms. But if we are dealing with someone or a situation in which persons are clearly going to act in harmful ways, a prostitute who is going to continue her activities, then one might say, 'Stop. But if you are not going to, at least do this.'"

Thursday, April 20, 2006

More on Authority, Reason and History

By Amy Uelmen

I’m back from a few days of vacation, and printed out the “authority and reason” thread for my subway ride home—it was so engrossing I almost missed my stop!  Here’s my two cents, colored largely by having just taught the sections of our Catholic Social Thought & the Law Seminar which focus on Evangelium vitae and war and peace. 

I wonder if we might identify a distinction between two large areas for discussion of the role of authority.  As Mark points out, there are enormous complexities that arise when one attempts to apply church teaching to concrete situations (or to the “real world,” as he says).  I wonder if there might be distinct questions that arise when we focus on the Church’s effort to respond and teach in the context of the shifting sands of history.  Perhaps the seismic shifts in teaching on a host of issues—eg, teaching about democracy, or particular questions such as whether Catholics could hold conscientious objector status to armed conflicts which would meet “just war” criteria—can also be understood as an effort to understand what does Church teaching mean for a given period of history.  It is only by putting the The Syllabus of Errors and Dignitatis Humanae into historical context that we understand what is authoritative in both. 

Perhaps this is a subset of Mark’s category, but I think it does provide and an important layer of complexity to discussions about continuity and change.  In response to Rob’s question, I think this might also cut against finding that the Catholic scholar’s proper course is to keep silent—because if we look at several issues as they unfolded over the course of the twentieth century, history seems to have shown that at least some of the dissenters were illuminating important dimensions for what eventually became official teaching.       

At certain points the CST documents contain clear cut statements of authority (eg, Evangelium vitae’s clarity on the moral evil of abortion is a case in point).  But it also seems that just as much effort is poured into understanding with depth the cultural context for a given social problem (see eg., EV 18, discussing circumstances that can mitigate “even to a notable degree subjective responsibility and the consequent culpability of those who make these choices which in themselves are evil").  I realize this is a different question than the one that Eduardo posed—but I wonder, how much of our work as legal theorists—especially when we are trying to work out practical and concrete proposals for policy—is precisely at this intersection, and caught up in the same dynamic? 

Thanks to all of you for a wonderful discussion!  Amy

Monday, April 3, 2006

“Woman, behold your son.”

By Amy Uelmen

I’d like to respond to some of the points in our continuing discussion about Jesuit legal education.  First, for the record, just a few of the facts about what has been happening at Fordham since 2001. 

For faculty, our Faculty Colloquia on Religion and the Law school is now in its fifth year.  It meets six to eight times per year, and draws the voluntary participation of 25% of the full time faculty.  While the faculty themselves set the agenda, it has for the past five years “privileged” the Catholic intellectual tradition, engaging topics such as Ex Corde, the Jesuit approach to education, the role of conscience, faith and politics, the history of Catholicism at the law school, etc.  Currently two of its participants (besides myself, and not the usual suspects) are exploring how to integrate CST into their scholarship.  The way some of the faculty have described these gatherings-again, not the usual suspects-are a “joy” and a “grace.” 

For the students, since 2004 we have offered a seminar on Catholic Social Thought and the Law, which surveys just about the entire corpus of CST.  We will continue to offer this course, and are currently exploring areas for more specialized focus.  Next year we will offer a new course on CST and Conflict Resolution.

For faculty, students and lawyers in the community, we offer an annual conference on religious values and legal practice, in which CST engages other faith traditions; and a Catholic Lawyer’s Program as a forum to explore how Catholic faith, teachings and traditions might inform the practice of law.  This year’s series, For All the Saints, explores how the lives of extraordinary Catholics- Thomas More, Bernard of Clairvaux, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, and Thérèse of Lisieux might shed light on the ordinary practice of law.

I agree that this is just a start.  But I think it would be fair to say that this could be described as “flesh on the bones,” and certainly more than a platitude or a tired formula.  And it is being carried out with the full, enthusiastic, unwavering support of the dean, the broader administration, and a significant group of the faculty.

Tenured faculty cannot be “pruned.”  For me it has been a grace to work with who we have.  I have discovered beautiful people with profound commitments to justice, and who in the context of an open and respectful community of conversation, also appreciate how their own visions of justice are at many points in deep harmony with the Catholic intellectual tradition. 

Reading some of the posts reminded me of some of my students' reactions to CST at this point in the semester-we have been harping on these problems for a hundred years and the Church has still not resolved them!  I gently point out that there are these other small details at work – like the culture, like original sin…. CST moves through time, responding to the ever-changing challenges of the culture and of history.  We can keep refining our analysis of exactly who is to blame for the state of Jesuit legal education, and who is worse off.  I agree that we need to face our limitations and shortcomings squarely, and in the light of the height and depth and breadth of the faith and love to which we are called.  But at a certain point I feel that efforts to pinpoint blame and measure how deep is the abyss of failure are just not constructive.  The Gregorian is in Rome, Baylor is in Waco, and Notre Dame is in South Bend.  Clearly these cities will create a certain baseline of religious cultural context and belief.  Fordham is in New York City - and so is working against the backdrop of a quite different cultural context.  We are working hard to move beyond platitudes.  We need your prayers and support and encouragement more than your criticism.

And even if we were to conclude that everything is in a hopeless and abysmal state?  What would Jesus do?  What would Mary do?  One of the moments of Mary’s life which is most helpful for me is when she was at the foot of the cross and Jesus said, “Woman behold your son.”  John was not Jesus.  John was a fragile, trembling, incredibly limited human being.  It was not a good deal to trade Jesus for John.  But Mary did embrace humanity in John, and that was her own work of redemption, this is how she generated the Church.  At this point, for whatever reason, Jesuit legal education may be fragile, trembling, and incredibly limited - more John than Jesus.  We are called to embrace John, with all of the love we can muster, and in this act of love to generate the community which is the Church.  And I believe - and have experienced - that this is the most fertile ground for communicating the essence of the Catholic intellectual tradition.

Thanks for listening.  Amy

Friday, March 31, 2006

Religiously Affilated Law Schools Conf at Baylor

By Amy Uelmen

Greetings from Waco after day one of the "Faith & Justice" Religiously Affiliated Law School Conference at Baylor Law School.  During the conversation about Justice and the Criminal Law, I realized how important it is for this bi-annual conference to rotate geographically.  In the midst of a presentation by Baylor Professor Brian Serr, it hit me how his framework (and I think it might be somewhat representative of the region) is to pose the question "How can my Christian framework be reconciled with the Constitution?"  I realized how starkly this contrasts with a "blue state" framework, which I think tends to ask "why not just work with the framework of dignity and human rights - why add in the Christian overlay at all?"  The discussion concluded with some reflection on the importance cultural context, of realizing who your audience is and speaking in a language that they can understand.... which I think then also adds to the case for diversity in various approaches to how religion is integrated into the curriculum - depending on the cultural characteristics of a given region and school. 

John Breen, Fr. Greg Kalscheur and I were part of a panel on Justice Within the Law School Curriculum, which took as its starting point John's article on Justice and Jesuit Legal Education, focusing especially on John's proposal that Jesuit law schools require a first year jurisprudence course that seriously engages the Catholic Tradition.  Since fellow MOJer expert blogger Rob Vischer is also here, I'll let him give the take on that. 

For me one of the highlights of the panel on Lying and Lawyers was Ellen Pryor's description of how she discusses the concepts of integrity, lying and self-deception in her Faith, Law & Morality course at SMU.  It seems that she has really found a way to help students both to grapple deeply with the intellectual principles, and reflect personally about what kind of lawyers they would like to become. 

The final session began with wonderment for the miracle that the biannual conference has come together every year without any formal structure, but realizing that now might be the time to form for RALS to organize itself into a more institutionalized and formalized structure.  To be continued...

Amy 

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive