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.

Thursday, September 7, 2006

An LLM in Catholic Legal Theory?

My post on the Catholic legal theory canon leads one reader to explore the possibility of an LLM in Catholic legal theory, asking what such a program would look like:

What would the required courses be?  If there was a thesis option, what would the topics be?  In addition to a booklist, perhaps it would be helpful to list what subject areas, what concepts, someone would have to be conversant with to demonstrate competence in Catholic Legal Theory.

And assuming that the substance of such a program could be articulated, would there be a market for it?  Assuming that the added cost of graduate work generally is justified by employer demand for the expertise acquired, would the CLT LLM add value from an employer's perspective?

Rob

Wednesday, September 6, 2006

What is Our Canon?

Hofstra law prof Matt Bodie has announced the "Research Canons" project to identify "the most important works of scholarship in the various areas of legal inquiry."  He explains:

Unlike other disciplines, most law academics do not have an advanced degree in "law."  For students pursuing a Ph.D in areas such as economics, history, or social psychology, they must pass comprehensive exams showing that they have a broad knowledge of the most important works in the field.  It is only after comps that students go on to complete their specialized dissertation research.

Legal academia assumes that entry-level candidates and new scholars have done the background research necessary for their area of expertise.  But it is left to the individual to get this knowledge.  Certainly, the J.D. provides a baseline, and mentors are helpful in providing further direction.  But there is nothing akin to comps that sets forth a comprehensive listing for new folks to follow. 

Previously on MoJ, we've talked about essential works related to certain concepts and more expansive "reading lists," but I'm wondering whether we can come up with a canon of, say, ten pieces of scholarship that should be non-negotiable reading for anyone who is serious about becoming a student of Catholic legal theory.  Is it possible to define a canon for CLT generally, or would it have to be broken down by subtopic?  I'm also curious whether the canon would include actual examples of CLT or, as our previous discussions seem to suggest, would focus on works from other disciplines which explore the underlying anthropological premises on which the CLT project is based.

Put simply, if a faculty candidate indicated an interest in CLT, is it fair to expect the candidate to have read certain books or articles?  If so, which ones?

Rob

Friday, September 1, 2006

Looking for Satan (and finding ourselves)

Were Hitler and Stalin possessed by Satan?  The Vatican's exorcist -- is that really an official position? -- apparently believes so.  Now I'll be the first to count The Screwtape Letters as a wonderful reminder of the spiritual dimension to good and evil, but pronouncing with any confidence when human evil is the product of satanic power threatens to marginalize the human choice from which evil results.  "The Devil made him do it," in a way, serves to disconnect us from the mess we create, minimizing our moral agency.

Rob

UPDATE: A reader reminds me of 1 John 5:19 ("[T]he whole world is under the control of the evil one.") and asks

Isn't all evil the product of satanic power? I don't think pointing that out minimizes our human agency, as long as we're compatibilists about human freedom (as we should be).  As I see it, saying that God makes people do good things doesn't take away genuine praise of those people, and saying that the Devil makes people do bad things doesn't take away genuine condemnation of those people.

I agree generally, but if Satan's hand is everywhere, I wonder whether it makes sense to distinguish Hitler and Stalin from everyone else.  And I still question what blaming Satan does to the moral culpability of the possessed individuals.  if the really, really evil folks are possessed by Satan to a greater extent than the rest of us somewhat evil folks, are the really evil ones culpable because they’ve allowed themselves to fall into Satan’s possession, or are they culpable because they still exercise control over their own actions?  If the latter, what is Satan’s role – a matter of influence, rather than possession?  I don’t at all deny the spiritual world and its relevance, I’m just much more reluctant than the exorcist is to identify particular instances of its manifestation.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Skeel on Christian Legal Theory

In Books & Culture, Penn law prof David Skeel reviews The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics and Human Nature (a volume to which MoJ-er Patrick Brennan contributed) and notes the growing interest in exploring the intersection of Christianity and law:

From the early 20th century until the 1940s, evangelical Christians disengaged from American public life. Law schools were hostile territory, generally to be avoided. As a result, the few evangelical legal scholars tended to operate under cover, assiduously separating their faith and their scholarly life. By the 1970s, Presbyterian minister and apologist Francis Schaeffer and other evangelical leaders, building on the efforts of predecessors such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga, had begun asking why there weren't more Christian lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. The evangelical re-engagement that followed has spread to academic circles, but more slowly than to business and the professions. Even now, it is an unusual law school that has more than one or two scholars who identify themselves as Christians, and whose faith explicitly informs their scholarship.

The publication of The Teachings of Modern Christianity, and the major Pew Charitable Trust funding that launched the project, signifies the major change underway. With the visible influence of Catholic intellectuals and evangelical leaders on the current White House, there suddenly is a deep interest in perspectives on religion, politics, and law. Legal scholars are not oblivious to these developments, as reflected in the increasing numbers of law review articles with "Christianity" in the title. Much of the new scholarship, too much perhaps, emphasizes philosophy and philosophical theology at the expense of other methodologies. The bias is understandable. For a generation chastened by Mark Noll's brilliant indictment, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, it's hard to resist the assumption that philosophy must be the truest and highest scholarly end.

Read the whole thing here.

Rob

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Responding to Abortion

The rape and resulting pregnancy of an eleven year-old girl presents one of the more sympathetic cases for abortion rights.  Nevertheless, the Catholic Church in Columbia has responded by excommunicating anyone involved in the girl's abortion, including the judges, legislators, politicians, and parents who made it possible. (HT: Open Book)

Rob

UPDATE: Hold on.  The prelate denies saying that the parties involved will be excommunicated.  But another interesting wrinkle emerges regarding a professional's right of conscience:

In May, Colombia's constitutional court legalized abortion in cases where fetuses were severely malformed, the pregnancy was the result of a rape or incest, or the mother's life was in danger.  Initially, doctors refused to perform abortions, wary of later facing prosecution. But the court issued a ruling compelling doctors to abide by its decision if the woman's case fell within the criteria.

Where U.S. News Fears to Tread . . .

If you, like me, have been intrigued by the prospect of someday supplementing your legal education with graduate work in theology, you'll find R.R. Reno's informal ranking of theology programs very helpful.

Rob

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Remembering Katrina

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has a heartbreaking compilation of individuals' recollections of the day Katrina hit.

Rob

Monday, August 28, 2006

Katherine Harris Gets Serious About Theocracy

As thorny and divisive as questions of church and state can be, it's nice when someone can come along and unify all reasonable minds in opposition to a set of outlandish views.  U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, in a doomed campaign for Senate, called the separation of church and state "a lie" and said, "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."

Rob

Georgetown Gets Serious About Mission

Showing the best side of its Catholic identity, Georgetown has kicked off campus outside Protestant ministries, including InterVarsity and Chi Alpha.  Joseph Bottum comments:

There’s an obvious irony here—employed too often to be surprising—in which people begin by protesting in the name of diversity against centralized authority, and later discover, once they’re in charge, how useful those old forms of authority can be in controlling diversity.

Rob

Summer Book Report #3

We've previously discussed the excerpted findings of Ron Sider's book, The Scandal of The Evangelical Conscience.  Evangelicals (as well as mainline Protestants and Catholics, to varying degrees) do not fare discernibly better than their non-Christian neighbors in terms of divorce, materialism, sexual morality, domestic abuse, and racism.  I read the book recently, and Sider (who previously wrote the landmark Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), pins much of the blame on the "cheap grace" mentality that evangelicals bring to faith.  For example, he writes:

There is simply no biblical justification for saying that the glorious truth of justification by faith alone is more important than the astonishing reality that the Risen Lord now lives in his disciples, transforming them day by day into his very likeness.  Justification and sanctification are both central parts of the biblical teaching on the gospel and salvation.  To overstate the importance of the one is to run the danger of neglecting the other.  And that is certainly what popular evangelicalism has done.  Whether emphasizing simplistic slogans such as "once-in-grace-always-in-grace" or focusing on seeker-friendly strategies that neglect costly discipleship, we have propagated the heretical notion that people can receive forgiveness without sanctification, heaven without holiness.  Notions of cheap grace are at the core of today's scandalous evangelical disobedience.

  Another problem is the lack of communal accountability:

The notion -- and practice -- of an independent congregation with no structures of accountability to the larger body of Christ is simply heretical.  How can an independent "Bible church" claim to be biblical when its very refusal to submit to a larger church structure of accountability defies the essence of a biblical understanding of being the church?

Obviously, Sider's prescription for evangelicals' problems sounds curiously Catholic.  This raises a new set of questions, though.  If evangelicals mirror society's sinfulness due to their lack of communal accountability and theology of cheap grace, what excuse do Catholics have?  If there is blame to be pinned somewhere, my first guess would be the tendency to emphasize rules over personal transformation in the faith formation process.  Or maybe it's the difficulty of fostering personal accountability through faith-centered relationships in parishes where folks hurry out as soon as the mass ends (and where small-group bible studies remain rare).  Or maybe it's the music.

Rob