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.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Taking Aim at Religion

The New York Times reports that the gloves are coming off in the debate between science and religion:

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

Rob

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Shrink the Church to Protect the Earth

Today's New York Times Magazine has an interview with Katharine Jefferts Schori, the new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.  There is much worth commenting on in the interview, but I was particularly struck by this exchange:

How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.

Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?

No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.

I guess this can be read charitably as a creative way to spin the Episcopal Church's dwindling ranks:  "Our denomination is shrinking because we're better educated than those baby-crazy Catholics and Mormons!  In fact, God wants us to shrink -- it's called stewardship!"

Rob

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Life as the Basis for Damages

A German court has ordered a gynecologist to pay child support for up to 18 years as compensation for botching a contraceptive implant.

Rob

Disabled Child = Disabled Family?

Wesley Smith notes the increasing respectability of the voices calling for the legalization of euthanasia for ill and disabled newborns.

Rob

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

How Full Is Your Quiver?

The "Quiverfull" movement is a rapidly expanding group of mostly Protestant families dedicated to the belief that God is the only legitimate family planner (so even natural family planning is prohibited).  Newsweek profiles the movement, suggesting that broader Catholic-Evangelical cooperation on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage has resulted in many conservative evangelicals second-guessing their previous embrace of contraception.  Folks at The Nation, not surprisingly, are not fans of the movement.  Here's a quote from one of the Quiverfull faithful:

[She] argues that feminism is a religion in its own right, one that is inherently incompatible with Christianity. "Christians have accepted feminists' 'moderate' demands for family planning and careers while rejecting the 'radical' side of feminism--meaning lesbianism and abortion," writes Pride. "What most do not see is that one demand leads to the other. Feminism is a totally self-consistent system aimed at rejecting God's role for women. Those who adopt any part of its lifestyle can't help picking up its philosophy." "Family planning," Pride argues, "is the mother of abortion. A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular."

It's clear that the Quiverfull mothers have picked up on the Church's teaching regarding the dangers of contraception; perhaps we could send them some encyclicals so they get the rest of the story?

Rob

Friends Rise Up!

Washington University law prof Laura Rosenbury has posted a working draft of her paper, "Friends With Benefits?"  (HT: PrawfsBlawg)  I have not yet read the paper, but she appears to be tackling a frequently overlooked bastion of nefarious discrimination: our legal system's willingness to privilege marriage over friendship.  Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

This Article [argues] that family law’s focus on marriage and marriage-like relationships, whether they be opposite-sex or same-sex, serves to perpetuate gender inequality. This existing focus implicitly privileges domesticated sexual relationships over other adult intimate relationships, namely friendships. Legal recognition and support is therefore provided to certain types of caregiving relationships but not others. Although such privileging may be obvious, because marriage is placed within the purview of family law and friendship is placed without, family law scholars have not examined the effects of family law’s recognition and support of marriage and marriage-like relationships and its silence about friendship.

This Article examines those effects, concluding that family law’s silence about friendship likely impedes the achievement of full gender equality in two related ways. First, the silence maintains a divide between marriage and “mere” friendship, implying that friendship is sufficiently different from marriage and marriage-like relationships to be properly outside of family law’s concern. It is unclear whether this view conforms to people’s lived experiences, although the very fact of legal recognition is a salient difference between friendship and marriage. Lived experience can thus be shaped by family law’s focus on marriage and silence about friendship. Second, this divide is not gender neutral, but rather amounts to state support of the types of domestic caretaking that traditionally played a vital role in maintaining state-supported patriarchy and that still largely follow gendered patterns today. Therefore, family law’s focus on marriage to the exclusion of other forms of friendship can perpetuate gendered patterns of care by encouraging people to prioritize sexual, domestic relationships over other relationships.

I have to admit that my confidence in our ability to extend legal recognition to committed same-sex couples without abandoning the legal significance of family is consistently undermined when I read modern family law scholarship.

Rob

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Solum on Public Legal Reason

Larry Solum has posted his new article, Public Legal Reason.  Here is the abstract:

This Essay deveopes an ideal of public legal reason—a normative theory of legal reasons that is appropriate for a society characterized by religious and moral pluralism. One of the implications of this theory is that normative theorizing about public and private law should eschew reliance on the deep premises of deontology or consequentialism and should instead rely on what I shall call public values—values that can be affirmed without relying on the deep and controversial premises of particular comprehensive moral doctrines.

The ideal of public legal reason is then applied to a particular question—whether welfarism (a particular form of normative law and economics) provides the sort of reasons that appropriate for legal practice. The answer to that question is no—to the extent that welfarism contends that the normative assessment of legal policies should rely exclusively on information about individual preferences, welfarism relies on deep and controversial premises of consequentialist moral theory that are fail the test of public reason. The Essay also investigates the thesis—advanced by Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell that any fairness principle (a nonwelfarist method of policy assessment) can violate weak Pareto (making everyone worse off). Whatever the implications of Kaplow and Shavell's argument, it does not show that welfarism can provide public legal reasons. The essay concludes that law's justifications should rely on normative principles that are accessible to reasonable citizens, whether they are theists or atheists, deontologists or consequentialists, moral philosophers or economists. Law's deliberations should be shallow and not deep. Law's reason should be public.

Rob

Monday, November 13, 2006

Neuhaus on The Gay (Un-)American

I count myself as an admirer of Richard John Neuhaus; even when I disagree with him, I find his analysis to be insightful and challenging.  But his post on the gay identity angle of the Ted Haggard scandal leaves me perplexed.  Neuhaus writes:

There was an op-ed in Wednesday’s New York Times asserting that 70 percent of Americans personally know someone who is gay. That seems statistically improbable. Somewhere between 2 and 4 percent of American males identify themselves as gay. (The figure is much lower for women.) Most of them are congregated in cities, and in those parts of cities known to be gay-friendly. Chelsea and the West Village, along with the Castro district of San Francisco and counterparts in other larger cities, are not America. Gays live in such places precisely because they are not America.

Admittedly, young people in college, or at least in most colleges, do know personally people who are gay; and some of them they count as friends. Most campuses have special-interest LGBT groups, and students are indoctrinated in gay ideology under the rubric of opposing “homophobia.” At one Ivy League college, faculty members told me over dinner that one-third of the male students were at least “experimenting” with homosexuality. Among the women, there were also a large number of “LUGS” (Lesbian Until Graduation). Whether such developments will significantly increase the percentage of adults identifying themselves as gay or lesbian will, I suppose, be discovered in due course. Apart from an intuition for the natural built into human beings, there are all kinds of incentives and pressures militating against such a significant increase.

What most Americans know about being gay is distinctively unattractive and, in their view, morally repugnant. Gay advocates deceive themselves in thinking that the more people know about homosexuality the more they will approve of it.

First, as J. Peter Nixon remarked over at Commonweal, I'm curious why the West Village, Chelsea, and the Castro District are "not America?"  Putting that aside, though, the suggestion that gays are some sort of cultural oddity on display only in places where the gay lifestyle is most exuberantly celebrated is to dismiss the sociological reality that many gays have integrated into the mainstream.  I have never lived in any of the "gay-friendly" neighborhoods identified by Neuhaus.  But I have become friends with gays and lesbians while living in Boston, Chicago, New York, and Denver.  In Minneapolis, I live in a neighborhood crawling with minivans, lemonade stands, soccer moms, and several gay couples whose kids participate in the life of the neighborhood as fully as anyone else.  To suggest that gays' wider acceptance in society is a direct result of being "indoctrinated" in college is to promote a caricature not only of college, but also of gays' evolving relationships with the surrounding society. 

What exactly is Fr. Neuhaus hoping to accomplish with this sort of argument?  More importantly, if a gay person reads his post, what conclusions will that person be justified in drawing about the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Rob

Hot New Religious Liberty Seminar

The contours of a new law school seminar are beginning to take shape in my mind: "The Religious Liberty Jurisprudence of 20th Century Popular Musicians."  One class will be devoted to the existential underpinnings of secularism, via John Lennon; another on the public accessibility of blasphemy as sanctionable conduct, via Madonna; another on the modern misunderstanding of authentic love, via a comparative study of Deus Caritas Est and the lyrics of leading 1980s hair bands; one on the powerful allure of evil as an inspirational worldview, via AC/DC; one on the problem human suffering poses for societies that take religion seriously, via XTC; one on the feasibility of solidarity as a legal principle in light of the Incarnation, via Joan Osborne; and with today's news comes the perfect content for a concluding class devoted to the uniquely insightful contributions to the modern understanding of religious liberty offered by Sir Elton John.

Rob

Catholic Identity on Campus

The Boston Globe profiles the movement among Catholic colleges and universities to reclaim their Catholic identity, focusing on Boston College.

Rob