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 1, 2005

Getting Serious About Community

By Rob Vischer

As we discuss whether the body of Christ is well-suited to suburban or urban existences, here's an alternative to consider: the New Monasticism.  A profile in The Christian Century gives an overview of the growing collection of commune-type Christian living environments that, in contrast to many recent installments of the long history of Christian communes, embrace technology and do not reflexively eschew Catholic or Orthodox traditions.  One problem, though, is:

the challenge of transcending divisions along the lines of race and class. While those who do join are drawn to the scriptural norm of communities that transcend racial and financial barriers, they tend to be white, college-educated folks, despite great effort to reach out. For example, one of the Sojourners' original goals was to serve some of the tens of thousands of refugees displaced to San Francisco as a result of civil war in El Salvador. Three Salvadoran families joined the church and benefited from its legal clinic and job preparation aid. As soon as they acquired the resources, the families promptly bought minivans, left the church and moved to the suburbs. Perhaps those who have had less of a chance at pursuing the American dream are not yet ready to be disenchanted with it.

I think disenchantment is elusive even among those well-acquainted with the American dream. Perhaps the nuclear family model has become so engrained in my psyche that I resist what would actually bring me closer to the rich communal existence contemplated by Christ, but I have no desire to move in with a collection of other Christians or pool our resources.  I'm pretty sure I'd welcome my mother-in-law with open arms, but expanding the circle much beyond that violates my comfort zone.  I'm glad the New Monastics are out there, challenging me to take community more seriously and pursue it more intentionally, but for now I'd be content with a few more meaningful conversations after church.  That doesn't mean I want to see parish friends sitting at my breakfast table every morning when I come downstairs, much less sharing my checkbook.  Is the New Testament model of community outdated, or am I simply missing out on the potential richness of the Christian life?

Rob

Monday, October 31, 2005

The UNFPA and China

By Rob Vischer

My colleague Elizabeth Brown responds to Rick's post defending the Bush Administration's decision to withhold funding from the United Nations Population Fund:

Rick states "The reason not to support the U.N. Population Fund is to avoid funding -- and arguably, culpably cooperating with -- intentional and unjustified homicides."  He obviously believes the UNFPA is engaged, in the words of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, of assisting the government of China in its "program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."  That China has a coercive program to enforce its one-child policy is not in doubt.  The UNFPA, however, has strongly condemned this program and does not provide abortions or abortion-related services in China.  In fact, the May 29, 2002 Report of the China UN Population Fund Independent Assessment Team of the U.S. State Department stated that "We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC."  The press release from the NLRC from which Rick quotes was issued on July 20, 2002 and it notes that China maintains coercive measures to support its one-child policy, which is certainly true.  The NLRC press release, however, does not contain any empirical evidence to refute the conclusion of the State Department that the UNFPA has not knowingly supported or participated in China's program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.  If the State Department's conclusion is true, providing funding to the UNFPA would not be funding or aiding evil (coercive abortions or involuntary sterilizations) as the UNFPA is not engaged in those activities and is not supporting them in China. . . .

The 2005 State Department Report on Human Rights and other studies suggest that "constructive engagement" by the UNFPA is having some positive effects in reducing the number of abortions within the 32 counties in which the UNFPA operates.  According to the State Department report, the policy of the Central Government in China formally prohibits the use of physical coercion (but not economic coercion) to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization.  The National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC) of China has set up a hotline for use by UNFPA project county residents to lodge complaints against local officials who attempt to violate the law.  Under State Compensation Law, citizens may sue officials who exceed their authority in implementing the birth planning policy and some individuals have exercised that right.  Local officials who have used population schools as detention centers have been fired or sanctioned administratively for violating the law.  The spacing requirement for parents who want permission to have a second child was removed in five and relaxed in ten of the thirty counties participating in UNFPA's Country Program V.  Authorities in China continue to reduce the use of targets and quotas.  Twenty-five of China's thirty-one provinces have eliminated the requirement for birth permits before married couples conceive their first child.  With the passage of State Council Decree 357 in 2002, corruption related to the social compensation fees (the economic tax on additional children) has declined and the NPFPC has investigated 10,000 complaints against local officials over these fees.  Other studies indicate that the number of abortions per live births has dropped in the thirty-two counties in which the UNFPA operates so that the rates are now lower [than] the number of abortions per live births in the United States.  Granted these are minor steps, but they are positive steps in the right direction. . . .

If the UNFPA isn't funding or aiding China's coercive policies as the State Department concluded in 2002 and denying funding to the UNFPA in 2002 resulted in an estimated 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions and 4,700 maternal deaths, as well as 77,000 infant and child deaths, according to the UNFPA, I am at a loss as to how the United States can continue to claim that this policy is promoting a "culture of life."

Thursday, October 27, 2005

The UN Population Fund and the Culture of Life

By Rob Vischer

Since we're on the topic of the UN, here's a recent NYT column by Nicholas Kristof titled, "Mr. Bush, This is Pro-Life?"  An excerpt:

Mr. Bush and other conservatives have blocked funds for the U.N. Population Fund because they're concerned about its involvement in China. They're right to be appalled by forced sterilizations and abortions in China, and they have the best of intentions. But they're wrong to blame the Population Fund, which has been pushing China to ease the coercion - and in any case the solution isn't to let African women die. . . . Pregnant women die constantly here because they can't afford treatment costing just a few dollars. Sometimes the doctors and nurses reach into their own pockets to help a patient, but they can't do so every time.

. . . . Somewhere in the world, a pregnant woman dies like that about once a minute, often leaving a handful of orphans behind. Call me naive, but I think that if Mr. Bush came here and saw women dying as a consequence of his confused policy, he would relent. This can't be what he wants - or what America stands for.

My colleague Elizabeth Brown asks:

Since the cutting off of this funding is frequently cited as one of President Bush's major acts in support of the culture of life, shouldn't the supporters of the policy have to show that it has in fact done something concrete to save lives rather than be merely a symbolic gesture which imposes real harms on women and children in other countries?  To date, the US has denied about $125 million to the UNPF and has not provided this amount of money to other programs that offer a similar range of medical services (excluding abortion) for pregnant women and young children that the UNPF offers.  If President Bush wants to claim credit for this policy as supporting a culture of life, doesn't he have to show that the denial of funding has prevented more abortions and deaths from complications from abortions than the lives lost due to stillbirths and deaths in childbirth which are occurring because the UNPF didn't receive the $125 million from the US to pay for the medical programs that would have prevented these deaths?

Subsidiarity and Children's Rights

By Rob Vischer

Jonathan Watson continues our conversation by suggesting how subsidiarity might play into the evaluation of the UN's Convention on Children's Rights:

It seems to me . . . that subsidiarity is intended not only as a warning to higher bodies, but against abdication of responsibility by lower orders as well.  Just as it would be a violation of this principle to interfere with state government who are having no problems dealing with. . . say . . . education, so it would be for a lower organization to willingly sign a document which abdicates responsibility or permits a higher organization to interfere where not necessary.
With these in mind, some aspects of the UN Children's document are salvageable. The parts dealing with international cooperation in situations where children need to move between states, where child slavery or prostitution is involved, or where international drug traffic is involved strike me as situations in which no lower order institution (state government) could possibly act effectively. On the other hand, those clauses previously discussed which allow for the possibility of state interference in the moral fiber of the family run afoul of the principle of subsidiarity.
But subsidiarity would give more leeway than this, wouldn't it?  Especially if the Convention's enforcement will stem primarily from moral sausion and public shaming within the international community (at least among those states for which shame is a possibility), it seems to me that the norms to be espoused could prudently go beyond "spillover" situations.  For example, couldn't the Convention stake out claims in favor of access to education (without necessarily mandating the substantive ends of that education) even though that impacts directly on the life of the family?  Certainly there are some fundamental truths that trump the deference given to lower bodies' decision-making authority under subsidiarity (the right to life, most obviously).  Maybe the scope and depth of the truths to be "operationalized" will vary with the degree of coercive power backing them.  But if the Convention is understood as embodying truth claims embraced by the signatory states, isn't there a subsidiarity-friendly benefit to encouraging/pressuring states (and consequently, the subcommunities within those states) to adopt certain practices that they are in fact disregarding, even if there is no discernible reason why those subcommunities could not decide to adopt such practices on their own?  In other words, subsidiarity seems to contemplate top-down action when lower bodies fail -- as a matter of fact -- to adhere to principles consistent with human dignity, not just when they are incapable of adhering to those principles.  (To be clear, I'm putting to the side the question of what the substance of those principles should be.)

Rob

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Catholics and Community: the Conversation Continues

By Rob Vischer

Amy Welborn linked to our conversation on Catholics, suburbia, and community, and it has spawned an interesting and growing set of readers' comments.  Check it out here.

Rob

More on Children's Rights

By Rob Vischer

Jonathan Watson adds to Rick's criticisms of the UN Convention on Children's Rights, starting with Article 13's proclaimed right to "receive information":

Theoretically, a child could bring a suit against the parents under this convention for preventing the child from accessing certain materials or internet tools which are deemed unharmful by the State or the U.N. One might think of internet chat rooms or instant messengers, to which many parents block or deny access. It is true that Article 14 has one line concerning States' respect for parental control and guidance, but it is surrounded in Arts. 13 and 14 by potential qualifiers, such as "[f]reedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law...."

Article 16 would call into question the U.S. current legal interpretation of free speech, as it makes "attacks on [the child's] honour and reputation" subject to legal action. We currently require more than mere name calling to initiate a slander or liable action, but it would seem like mere name calling could fall under this article. . . .

Article 24(2)(f) notes that States should provide preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services. If this is truly only a document about the rights of a child, why are family planning services discussed? Is this for pre-teen / teenage children who might bear a child? Or is this to help children have the best resources and family situation possibly by providing contraception and / or abortion to prevent younger siblings?
And St. Thomas alum Pat Shrake sees the abortion problem looming in Article 16, which provides that: "[n]o child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy . . . [and] the child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."  As Pat says, it's "easy to imagine how that could be construed in an anti-Catholic way."  He also directs us to a blistering critique of the Convention from the Heritage Foundation.

I share many of these misgivings, and remain leery of expanded applications of "rights talk" in general.  Still, the status of the child seems an eminently wortwhile object of international law's pedagogical function (to the extent it can be said to have such a function).  Perhaps the Convention's ambition runs afoul of subsidiarity, but the project's impetus strikes me as sensible.  I'm wondering how Catholic legal theory might frame a Convention on the Child that can articulate culturally transcendent and practically meaningful norms without subverting the family's primacy in this area . . .

Rob

Children's Rights

By Rob Vischer

Last week the folks at Emory held a conference, "What's Wrong With Rights for Children?," devoted to the question of why the United States is the only nation other than Somalia not to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Martin Marty reports:

Some who care about these things are embarrassed, ashamed, frustrated, and even enraged that presidents do not forward the Convention to the Senate -- which, however, in the present climate would never consent to it. In his keynote at the conference last weekend in Atlanta, where he returned for a kind of progress report, the usually hopeful Nobel Laureate [Jimmy] Carter commented in one word on the possibility of the U.S. joining all the rest of the world now: It's "hopeless." Period.

A question for my fellow travelers on the Catholic legal theory road (readers and co-bloggers alike): is there any persuasive reason why the Convention should not be embraced by those concerned with the well-being of the child?  Should Catholic legal theorists be taking up the charge and advocating for its ratification?

Just to give fair warning to those who want to build a Catholic legal theory case against the Convention: Pope John Paul II declared in 1984 that "The Holy See regards the present Convention as a proper and laudable instrument aimed at protecting the rights and interests of children, who are 'that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity.'"

Nevertheless, was the Pope missing something that should give the United States pause?

Rob

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Community in Suburbia: Lessons From Evangelicals

By Rob Vischer

Eduardo's call for the Church to address land use resonates with my experience, but perhaps for different reasons.  Put simply, evangelicals have adapted to suburban living in ways that make meaningful community still possible.  In my experience, Catholics have not.  Growing up in suburban evangelical churches, each Sunday morning I attended a 90-minute Sunday school class, followed by a 90-minute worship service.  My family would linger after the service for up to an hour talking with friends, then gather at someone's home for a big Sunday dinner with friends or extended family.  In the evening, we would return to church for another worship service.  And on Wednesday nights, we would again go to church for children's activities while the adults participated in a prayer meeting.  All of these activities were intensely communal, rich with bonding potential.  The fact that we all retreated to our car-centered, isolated living arrangements did not matter as much because we had three opportunities for building relationships every week (not to mention the regular potlucks, holiday services, etc.).  The church was the social and spiritual center of my family's weekly existence.

As a Catholic, I am consistently surprised by how quickly the church empties after each Mass (beginning before the Mass even ends, as some folks begin to file out once they get communion).  At least at the parishes I've attended, there is very little socializing that occurs.  In fact, in the many parishes I've visited, no one has ever stopped me to introduce themselves, asked me if I'm a visitor, or made any effort to reach out to me unless I initiate a conversation.  Now that I've gotten to know a few people in our parish, I'm again surprised that none of them know each other -- even though most have belonged to the parish for years, I'm introducing them for the first time.  When I've asked longtime Catholics about the apparent lack of community surrounding the Mass, the response I usually get is, "Well, the mass is primarily about worship, not socializing.  The socializing traditionally occurs during the week."  That approach might have facilitated community-building in urban ethnic enclaves, but it doesn't cut it anymore in suburbia when folks disperse to their isolated existences without even a Sunday-morning experience of community (much less a Sunday-night or Wednesday-night experience) to fall back on.

So while I agree that the evangelical spiritual life is much more amenable to the solitary living-room experience, evangelicals have actually made suburban community a reality in ways I have yet to see from Catholics.

Rob

Friday, October 21, 2005

Punishing Underage (Gay) Sex

By Rob Vischer

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot punish underage sex more severely if it involves homosexual conduct.  A lower court had ruled that the disparity in applicable sentences was justified by the state's interest in children's traditional development, fighting disease, and strengthening traditional moral values.  Last I checked, traditional moral values frowned on underage sex, regardless of the genders involved.  Statutory schemes like these lend credibility to critics' insistence that opposition to gay rights stems from nothing more noble than hatred of "the other."

Rob

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Just Call Me Anselm

By Rob Vischer

Which theologian are you?  (Click here, then scroll down to take the test.  HT: St. Maximos' Hut) 

Rob

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive