"Deus Caritas Est," the new encyclical, is out. I think this link to Zenit should bring you to the english tranlation posted on their webpage - but just in case that doesn't work, try zenit.org, and here's the info: Code: ZE06012520, Date: 2006-01-25, Encyclical Letter "Deus Caritas Est")
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Deus Caritas Est
Thursday, January 5, 2006
Responses to Rick and Rob
Rick, re your comment about chaplain disclaimers: I am in the midst of preparing for the first day of my CST & the Law seminar, which starts with Richard Gaillardetz’s essay on the Ecclesiological Foundations of Modern CST in Ken Himes’ new collection. I was just contemplating the “dialogic discernment” which emerges from reflection on how to apply scripture and tradition to a local situation. OK, the language of the chaplain disclaimer may be a little awkward, but what’s the harm in acknowledging the concrete fact that some folks are still struggling with these questions, and making the effort to meet folks more than half way? I’m not sure if an effort to reach out with these kinds of assurances necessarily validates prejudice.
Rob, re your thoughts on praising God in the midst of suffering: what came to me was that perhaps there is a fourth response which focuses less on sovereignty and more on mystery: in the midst of suffering, to contemplate that the greatest expression of God’s love is not through a show of power or causal control over circumstances, but the mystery of shared suffering, through the cross. One reason for praise is that the mystery of the cross means that God’s real and transforming presence of love is a reality – even in the midst of our struggles with the fallen state of the world which may have caused the accident – and this is the reason why “it is well with my soul.”
Amy
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Evolution vs. Religion
In light of the recent intelligent-design discussions, I thought folks might enjoy an an essay on the evolution debate I recently published in the Focolare's monthly magazine, Living City - it's posted at the sidebar under my name. It concludes with an excerpt from John Paul II's 1988 letter to George Coyne, SJ, in which he challenges both religion and science to discover a unity which is not identity, and which "presupposes the diversity and the integrity of its elements."
I have an inkling that the model of dialogue that he describes might be applied to tensions beyond the faith-science debates...
Amy
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design Case
By now you may have seen the opinion Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the intelligent design case just handed down yesterday from the Middle District of Pennsylvania. I spent my subway-strike day at home musing over the lengthy text.
My overall impression was that this was an easy case. For the “secular purpose” analysis under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the record here was dripping with evidence that the school board’s purpose in adopting the statement was religious. The fact seemed particularly bad here on failures to effectively distinguish between intelligent design and creationism.
I thought one of the most interesting lines of analysis was the court’s concern with presenting only “dualities” rather than a range of critiques. By presenting to the students only one other option (ID) rather than a host of arguments which might help them probe the contours of the theory of evolution, the Dover statement simply fell too neatly into the pattern of previous cases where courts had stuck down as unconstitutional efforts to include creationism in the science curriculum.
For example, take a look at the discussion of McClean (at Kitzmiller 21-22), where the court found it was especially problematic to present only two possible explanations—either the scientific theory of evolution or biblical creationism, and to treat the two as mutually exclusive such that “one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution,” and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence the necessarily supported biblical creationism.
Perhaps one of the most important cultural challenges we face now is how to move beyond the dualities that “culture war” type conversations seems to foster.
Justice Blackmun once mused, “easy cases make bad law.” O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773, 804 (1980) (Blackmun, J. concurring in judgment). I don’t think Kitzmiller is an example of “bad law,” for I agree with the conclusion and much of the analysis. But I do think that because the case was so easy, it did not prove to be a good vehicle to probe some of the more nuanced angles of the current debate about the relationship between science and religion.
For example, the court eloquently concludes its analysis:
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
I bet many of us agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Many interpretations of the theory of evolution do not conflict in any way with belief in God as creator. As theologian John Haught, who testified as an expert for the plaintiffs, explained in his book, Deeper than Darwin, there are different ways to “read” the text of creation—science is one kind of grammar, and philosophy and religion come at the text in different but complementary ways.
But because this case was “easy,” it didn’t really probe the contours of how the presentation of scientific theories might foster the harmony between scientific and religious perspectives, or at least make an effort not to denigrate religious perspectives.
While theories of evolution do not necessarily conflict with biblical accounts of creation, what was absent from the Kitzmiller narrative was any acknowledgement that scientists have, at times, overstepped their bounds, and presented as science what is actually philosophical reflection on the origins of life. For example, when biologist Richard Dawkins claimed in River Out of Eden, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,” he was certainly venturing into philosophy, far beyond the bounds of scientific method.
As John Haught warned, “the leap from ‘Darwin got it right’ to ‘Darwin tells the whole story’ has proven increasingly irresistible.”
When some parents express concerns about “scientific materialism,” I think they may be reacting not so much to having their kids exposed to scientific method, but to the extent to which some scientists have ventured into more philosophical reflections on the origins of life, and have claimed to “tell the whole story,” to the exclusion of religious narratives.
For example, at the end of the Dover statement, students were informed: “The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families.” The Kitzmiller court was concerned that this was too similar to the Frieler case which rejected a similar statement as unconstitutional, because, among other reasons, it “‘reminds school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by the parents on the subject of the origin of life,’ thereby stifling creative thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt, to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat.” (Kitzmiller at 44, citing Frieler at 345).
While this may reflect an understandable concern that students are at some point exposed to scienctific method, I think schools need to be careful not to insist that biology classes "tell the whole story," to the exclusion of religious narratives that children may learn from their parents. Our real challenge is to find ways to express respect and space for both. Futher thoughts? Amy
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Conscience / Dissent V
Patrick, that may all be fine as far as the skeleton of doctrine goes – but I think the pastoral dynamic has been fleshed out a bit more. Novo Millennio Inuente n.45 seems to be a little closer to Steve’s hope for “a community of discourse, . . . an ongoing collaborative effort”:
To this end, we need to make our own the ancient pastoral wisdom which, without prejudice to their authority, encouraged Pastors to listen more widely to the entire People of God. Significant is Saint Benedict’s reminder to the Abbot of a monastery, inviting him to consult even the youngest members of the community: "By the Lord’s inspiration, it is often a younger person who knows what is best".30 And Saint Paulinus of Nola urges: "Let us listen to what all the faithful say, because in every one of them the Spirit of God breathes".31
While the wisdom of the law, by providing precise rules for participation, attests to the hierarchical structure of the Church and averts any temptation to arbitrariness or unjustified claims, the spirituality of communion, by prompting a trust and openness wholly in accord with the dignity and responsibility of every member of the People of God, supplies institutional reality with a soul.
Amy
Chiming in on the “Christmas Wars”
Thanks, Rick, for the report of Pope Benedict’s comments about the “pollution” of Christmas, and the connections to John Nagle’s work on “pollution” defined broadly as “unwanted influence.”
In picking through some of the recent “Christmas Wars” press and in other more informal conversations, I have noticed a tendency to collapse two issues: first, the commercialization of Christmas, and second, the cultural questions which arise in a pluralistic society with the celebration of a major religious holiday.
When the two issues are collapsed, the dynamic in the conversation sometimes goes like this: I am going to insist on saying “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays,” and support public and statements and displays that focus on Christmas rather than a generic “holiday season” in order to redeem the true meaning of this season.
It seems to me that it might be helpful to clarify that the “unwanted influence” that “pollutes” Christmas is not the diversity of faith traditions in our culture, but excessive consumerism and commercialism that distracts Christians from focusing—and perhaps even communicating to others—the poverty and simplicity at the heart of the message of Christmas.
I was struck by the locus of Pope Benedict’s constructive solution to the “pollution” of Christmas —to clean up our own act: assembling the Nativity scene in the home—focused on passing on the faith to one’s children. Not on insisting that Macy’s says “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays.” And certainly not in promoting a cultural turf war which fails to acknowledge and respect the diversity of faith traditions, or is insensitive to the extent to which the very public displays of a Christian message at this time of year could make non-Christians feel uncomfortable or excluded.
Over the next few weeks, I will work hard to redeem the heart of Christmas by keeping a check on the extent to which consumerism has crept into my own attitudes and expectations. At the same time, I will also refrain from wishing a “Merry Christmas” to my Jewish, Muslim, and agnostic friends. Both, I think, are consistent with what Christmas is all about.
Amy
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Relationships in Law: is there a place for fraternity?
Thank you to Mark for holding the blog fort with his “Roman holiday” posts. I’m not sure it was a holiday for me, but it certainly was an amazing event. Relationships in law: is there a place for fraternity? was a three day conference sponsored by the Focolare Movement's "Comunione e Diritto" (Communion and Law) project, which is working to draw out the implications of the spirituality of communion for legal theory and the legal profession.
The event was held in Castelgandolfo, outside of Rome from November 18-20. Participation exceeded every expectation—reaching almost 700 people from 35 countries and four continents. It opened with a wonderful panorama in which ten representatives from four continents spoke of the challenges of bringing the ideal of “fraternity” to their own legal systems and environments, and their hopes for the congress. The US was represented by David Shaheed, a Muslim judge from Indiana who has been involved with Muslim-Catholic dialogue for a number of years. (he's here in the first picture, on the left, next to representatives from the Philipines and Hungary).
This was followed by a message from the founder of the Focolare Movement, Chiara Lubich, inviting the participants to reflect on how legal theory and practice might be enriched by the dimension of relationships of mutual love. To give you a taste:
“Every human being feels the need to be loved and to give to others the love he or she has received. On the other hand, it is the love that is received and given that allows people to fulfill themselves and also to live in communion with one another. It is in this sense that fraternity can be understood and practiced. But this fraternity has an ontological foundation, I dare say, in the love of God who in creating every human being made us brothers and sisters to one another, therefore equal and inclined toward the good of a common family, the human family. . . .
How can we concretely live out this fraternity in our daily lives? We have understood that the way is mutual love, lived on the model of the Most Holy Trinity, where the three persons annul themselves out of love for each other, to find themselves again in a continual crescendo of Life—if we can thus say in human terms—always more authentically persons and always more deeply in communion, in unity.
We, men and women, are called to imitate this sublime model of life in all our relations, in every sphere of social life. Law, right from its inception, has been perceived as the set of rules governing social life, indeed as the order of society itself. I would like to see this regulating function vivified by the new commandment of mutual love, to encourage the complete fulfillment of people and the relations they establish.”
The project is still at the beginning of the enormous task of drawing out a fruitful international exchange between legal systems, and is still working through numerous cultural and linguistic challenges. But the program reflected a promising start. In addition to those listed on the program, other brief interventions such as one from Cameroon, gave glimpses of the traumas, hopes and heroism entailed in the efforts to develop functioning legal systems and to protect human rights.
We were 23 professors, lawyers and judges from the US, including six from Fordham, and with MOJ well represented by Mark! His comments on how the solution to the limitations of homo ecomonicus can be found in Christian anthropology, were very well received. My brief “Seeds of Fraternity in Corporate Law,” explored themes similar to my earlier essay, “Toward a Trinitarian Theory of Products Liability,” (see side bar under my papers) with further reflections on John Rawls as an unlikely ally in the venture.
Other US contributions touched on mediation in family law disputes, drug courts’ emphasis on treatment rather than punishment, and the Georgia Justice Project as a successful example of restorative justice and social re-integration. The final word of the concluding roundtable was given to Fordham's Prof. Russ Pearce, who gave a Jewish perspective on how the concept and practice of love of neighbor could transform legal structures and practice. (Pictures of some of our group and the roundtable are here)
The Italian and Vatican press gave extensive coverage to the event. (If you read italian, check out the Avvenire article, “Se la fraternità si sposa con il diritto”). Doug Ammar and I were also interviewed by the English version of Vatican Radio, I’ll let you know when it runs. The Italian versions of the presentations will be published in the interdisciplinary cultural review, Nuova Umanità. Plans for an English version are also underway.
I know that many of you had this event in your prayers - thank you - and we'll keep you posted on the plans for a local follow-up, probably during the next academic year.
Amy
Friday, November 11, 2005
Catholic Legal Education: Responses to Kevin and Mark
Thank you Mark and Kevin for your challenging posts. Just a few thoughts in response.
First, this is not the first time that I have pointed out the limitations of the blog medium, and probably will not be the last - but I think that this is one instance where one reason we might be talking past each other is because we're not able to ask for clarifications mid-stream. I think some of these questions might need to be worked out over lunch or a beer. In the course of this kind of clarifying conversation, I think it would emerge clearly that all of us - and especially Mark Sargent - care deeply about promoting right practices AND right belief, and right practices grounded in right belief; and that no one in this group has dogmatically rejected theological inquiry into political and legal theory. Some of us on this blog struggle with how we express the theological connection because few of us have advanced degrees in theology - but I think we could safely say that all of us care deeply about this dimension, or we wouldn't be in this conversation. And speaking for myself, I'm very grateful for any help in articulating those connections.
That said - a few thoughts for both of you.
First, Kevin - I think in many ways you have hit on the $64,000 question. I agree that the relationship between theology and identity should be at the core of our discussions not only about Catholic education, but also about the relationship between the Church and the culture as a whole. Let me work with your line: "Too often we say that the practicalities of our current situations must be taken into account, that faith doesn't really speak to our unique situations, that the realities of our current situations limit what we can think or do."
I would say that much of my work is precisely at the intersection of recognizing and appreciating the practicalities of a given situation, and bringing a faith persepctive to bear - and that for me these really come together in a theology of the cross. In many of the struggles that Mark listed - eg, fear, confusion, uncertainty, misunderstandings about the tradition that we encounter in others, but also in our own failures as a Catholic community to effectively communicate the tradition or to be a shining example of its vitality - for me, these have a name: they are all an expression of Jesus on the cross. In recognizing that it is precisely and especially here where I am called to love him, and be a presence of love in response, I believe it is also precisely and espeically here - in and through this love for the cross - that we will have the light of the Holy Spirit - that flows from the cross - to know exactly what it means to love and be faithful to the tradition in the context of any given practical situation. And it will also be the Holy Spirit which flows from this love that also helps us to trace the work of God (or in Jesuit parlance, find "God in all things") - even in unexpected ways and places.
It might also be interesting to explore how the Trinitarian theology could be especially helpful as we engage the practicalites of our current situation. The Trinity as a model of unity in diversity, as a model of self-emptying life-giving love, might speak deeply to ways to build real communities in which we can be formed by the tradition.
Mark, a few thoughts. First, my point about history is that since we are at the very beginning of this project, no school - and certainly no group of schools - should be written off yet. Second, and related, I am saguine not because of numbers or statistics, but because I have seen how even a tiny group (which is made up not only of Catholics) focused on listen to each other, and appreciating the presence of "God in all things," can create a community in which an open conversation about the role of religion, and particularly about the Catholic intellectual tradition, in legal education. Finally I would push the point that efforts grounded in ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue are not adjacent too, but actually the heart of Catholicism, at least as the life of the Church is described in Gaudium et Spes and in the Second Vatican Council more generally.
Sorry to go on. But I do look forward to continuing the conversation - I don't think the two of you are that far apart. You may both disagree with me! But in any case, I'd look forward to a lunch conversation in the near future!
Amy
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
Catholic Law Schools: Response to Richard
Thank you, Richard. A few thoughts to continue our conversation on Patricia Levefere’s National Catholic Reporter piece on Catholicism and Teaching Law.
I’m going to back Tom Shaffer – I think that both Ex Corde and the “religious lawyering” movements are expressions of something broader and deeper—a “sign of the times” that we need a deeper integration, a deeper unity, between the life of the soul, the human spirit, intellectual endeavors, and professional life. Because I see the project as much vaster, I think the jury’s still out on whether it will succeed.
Nonetheless, I agree that Ex Corde is a good text to work with for discussions about Catholic identity. No.13 sets out these criteria: “Every Catholic University, as Catholic, must have the following essential characteristics”:
1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human
knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their
pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life"
What might this mean for Catholic law schools? I think these criteria can point in a variety of directions. For example, in accord with (3) – one might say that no Catholic law school should be without a vehicle for advocacy against the death penalty, in accord with recent clarifications in the catechism. Or in accord with (4) no Catholic law school should be without a clinic or other concrete manifestations of service to the poor – that’s absolutely essential.
I agree with Richard that the example of professors is important – but I think the question of whether liturgy or practices such as Eucharist adoration should be a focal point depends greatly on the make-up of the student body. For example, reading no. 39: “When the academic community includes members of other Churches, ecclesial communities or religions, their initiatives for reflection and prayer in accordance with their own beliefs are to be respected.” On this basis, one could also say that at least in certain regions, it is essential for a Catholic university to have respectful space for prayer for Jews and/or Muslims.
I guess what I’m really getting at is that especially at schools that have been around for more than ten years, we are working with a variety of histories, cultural contexts, student populations, and social commitments. For this reason, we will be drawing out a variety of applications. I believe Ex Corde leaves plenty of room for the art of discerning how to be a Catholic law school in any given context.
This is not an exact analogy, but I think the reflections on ecumenism in John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshhold of Hope are a helpful literary key. In response to the question of why the Holy Spirit permitted so many divisions within the Church, John Paul II draws out the “more positive answer”: “Could it not be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ’s Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ? Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise. . . . It is necessary for humanity to achieve unity through plurality, to learn to come together in the one Church, even while presenting a plurality of ways of thinking and acting, or cultures and civilizations.” (p.153).
Could we not say, in something of an analogy, the law schools that are at this point working with the reality of incredibly diverse faculties and student bodies have the opportunity to develop distinct gifts and examples for Catholic legal education? For example, I think one of the most important gifts we can give students in New York is the example – even “witness” – of how Catholics can be in respectful and open dialogue with people of other religions and cultures, and in that context to reflect on how the Catholic intellectual tradition might shed light on the various problems they will face in practice. (See Ex Corde no. 37. “In its service to society, a Catholic University will relate especially to the academic, cultural and scientific world of the region in which it is located.”).
Or to back up for a second to a broader question: does anyone disagree that there should be a variety of models for Catholic legal education? At times I feel like we get stuck in attempts to delineate the “best” model—or to highlight certain “baselines” that may work at a school being built up from scratch, but would be unrealistic in schools with more complex histories on their shoulders. If we agree on this, then I’d like to push the point that variety is a good thing. Working with John Paul II’s ecumenism analogy, it is a vehicle for putting into relief “wealth which would have not come to light otherwise….” And in this spirit of respect for variety, we can actually learn from each other and recognize that different schools will contribute to the conversation in different ways.
Thoughts?
Amy
Friday, November 4, 2005
Catholic Law Schools: Thoughts on History and a Suggestion
I’ll throw in my two cents for our discussion on the recent National Catholic Reporter piece on Catholic Law Schools.
First, a couple thoughts on “how did we get here?” Some might describe the trajectory of the history of Catholic legal education as the gradual loss of a beautiful synthesis between legal education and the Catholic intellectual tradition – and I can see how this leads to a certain pessimism. But I just can’t find much evidence for that story – please help me out if you have other sources which could support that theory. I think the more solid account is that Catholic legal education was about access for an ethnic minority that otherwise would not have made its way the professional sphere. I think this changes how we see our project significantly. Efforts to work out what the Catholic intellectual tradition means for legal education then becomes a challenging and rather new project, in large part flowing from the teachings and insights of the Second Vatican Council. I think that makes a big difference in the tenor of our conversation.
On the question of why the symbol of the cross is problematic and even offensive for some: history is helpful here too. As theologian Mary Boys put it in a beautiful article—“The scandal of the cross consists in this: Christians in their history have made it a sign of conquering hate rather than sacrificial love.” (Mary C. Boys, The Cross: Should a Symbol Betrayed Be Reclaimed?, Cross Currents, Spring 1994: 44:1). I’m with John Paul II in the need to recognize the ways in which we have completely blown it as a community—we need to both recognize the damage and working for healing. Religious symbolism is complex for many reasons, and I don’t think it is necessarily an expression of an outright rejection of Catholicism or the tradition as a whole.
I don’t mean to say this is the end of the story. Last year we had a beautifully profound and transformative discussion with some of the faculty here about the meaning of the cross. Our discussion included articulation of both the fears and anxieties that the symbolism of the cross has generated for non-Christians, as well as its profound and central meaning for Christians. Even on these tough topics, we can listen to one another and learn from each other—even with the painful weight of history and need for reconciliation on many levels.
And with that, I’d like to make a suggestion. What would happen if the focus of our conversations about Catholic identity and education became… love? I have the sense that love might help us find a way through and beyond students’ and colleagues’ awkwardness in how they express themselves, so that we can understand what might be fear, anxiety, or perhaps just lack of understanding behind their comments or questions… I have seen how love does create a space of trust which leads to a genuine exchange of gifts through which Catholics and non-Catholics can learn from each other.
My favorite litany of Mary is not “mirror of justice,” but “refuge of sinners”—because how many times have I experienced God’s unconditional love in the very midst of my own limitations and lack of love? Often when I walk into school I ask Mary for something of her love, so that whoever crosses my path—colleagues, students, whoever—of whatever religious background or political stripe—can find in me a space—even a refuge—of welcome and understanding. And I believe this then can create the most fertile ground for an exchange on the place for the treasures and depths of the Catholic intellectual tradition in the law school curriculum.
Amy
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
