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.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Freedom from poverty as a human right

This book should be of interest to MoJ-ers.  (HT: Solum)

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Is a Catholic perspective on economic policy possible?

In the current Commonweal, I review two new books: The Option for the Poor in Christian Theology, edited by Daniel Groody, and United States Welfare Policy: A Catholic Response by Thomas Massaro, SJ.  As an inducement to reading the whole thing, here's the opening:

Two fears make Catholics wary of faith-based arguments about economic policy.  First is the fact that policy questions turn on the exercise of prudential judgment rather than bright-line moral absolutes.  It is easy to draw lines in the abortion debate based on the church's teaching;; it is significantly more difficult to draw such lines when the debate concerns the most effective way to address poverty.  Bishops may deny Communion to a prochoice politician, but can one imagine them doing the same to an economist?  Second, in light of this uncertainty, efforts to connect the church's teaching to specific economic policies arae often viewed more as partisan posturing than faithful discipleship, exacerbating a fear that too much noise about the political here-and-now may drown out the gospel's proclamation of a world to come.

What happened to "rare?"

Doug Kmiec argues that "the Democratic platform language on abortion takes several notable steps toward specific, constructive ways to honor human life."  I appreciate the new platform's inclusion of prenatal care, income support, and adoption programs as national priorities.  But, like Linda Hirshman, I was more struck by the absence of the "safe, legal, and rare" mantra.  Unlike Hirshman, though, I had always taken some comfort in the "rare."  As Michael points out, Hirshman counts this new direction as progress, since the earlier version of the platform "asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must." 

Did the platform's drafters share Hirshman's sentiment, or did they view the "safe, legal, and rare" language as superfluous in light of the call for prenatal care, income support, and adoption services?  If the latter is the case, I would gently remind them that, in the painful national conversation about abortion, language is rarely superfluous.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

What's going on in Chicago?

Today's Chicago Tribune reports on Cardinal George's deposition testimony and the resulting sexual abuse settlement with plaintiffs' lawyers.  (HT: Commonweal)  Maybe someone can place this in a more positive light for me, but it seems like the Church was not taking abuse allegations seriously in Chicago, even as late as 2006.  For example:

In the investigation of Bennett, the deposition finds the cardinal and church officials received four detailed allegations of sexual abuse dating back to 2002. But they did not act to remove Bennett from his church until 2006, despite two recommendations from the archdiocese review board months earlier, according to the deposition.

Instead, Bennett was placed under the supervision of a monitor, Rev. Leonard Dubi, who apparently was Bennett's close friend. George disregarded a recommendation by an archdiocese review board to remove Bennett in October 2005 and again in November, attributing the delay to the priest's lack of representation by a canon lawyer.

By the time he was removed, the deposition reveals, more than a dozen allegations had mounted against the priest—a fact the archdiocese failed to tell parishioners and the public.

George's testimony and church correspondence on Bennett also indicated that the archdiocese's vicar for priests, Rev. Edward Grace, himself a lawyer, played a role in coaching clergy to deny allegations.

In 2002, a male victim voluntarily underwent a lie-detector test that showed he was telling the truth. The cardinal says he never received that information. In 2003, a female victim tells archdiocese officials specific details about freckles on Bennett's scrotum and a round birthmark on his back that led an archdiocese review board to conclude that sexual abuse "did happen."

Grace advised Bennett on how to handle the victim's knowledge of his private parts, according to a memo. According to the testimony, Grace told Bennett in November 2005 to get a note from a dermatologist questioning whether the scrotum marks might be "aging marks" and may not have been present at the time of the allegation.

The deposition transcript itself is here.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Dante and Homophobia

You should check out Rick Hills' post over at PrawfsBlawg on the possibility of non-homophobic opposition to same-sex relationships, as seen through the lens offered by Dante.  Here's the opening:

A conservative friend of mine protested my recent post that used the term “homophobia” to refer to persons who disapprove of same-sex sexual relationships. He noted that such disapproval is not necessarily “phobic”: It could simply be based on some perfectly rational theory of sexual morality. As a theoretical matter, I tend to think that my friend is correct: Disapproval of homosexuality is not necessarily phobic, as a matter of logical necessity. But much –- probably most -- modern disapproval is, in my view, probably phobic as a matter of fact.

UPDATE: To be clear, while Hills' post is worth reading, his reasoning is, in my view, far from air-tight, as I've tried to indicate in the comments.

The Death of the Mainline (and Why It Matters)

I just returned from a week at Lake Okoboji in northwest Iowa, where, since my birth, I have gathered with my extended family for an old-fashioned evangelical Bible conference every August.  This sort of gathering used to be found all over the place, but it's a dying breed.  The Okoboji Conference (founded by my great-grandfather in 1935) is still vibrant, attracting roughly 2000 people each year for morning classes and evening services.  This year I co-taught a class with my brother Phil, titled Christ and Culture: Christian Perspectives on Law, Entertainment, and Business.  While my brother handled the entertainment and business sides, I spent three days exploring modern law with 160 evangelicals.  It was challenging for me, and undoubtedly jolting for them, in part because I encouraged them to look beyond scriptural texts to find intellectual resources for engaging our culture on issues like human dignity, the family, and economic justice.  (At a minimum, I guarantee that there is a deeper working knowledge of "subsidiarity" today among northwest Iowa's evangelicals than at any time in history.)

So engagement between Catholics and evangelicals is on my mind, and that might explain why I found Joseph Bottum's The Death of Protestant America so interesting.  Bottum places Mainline Protestantism's decline in a broader cultural context, focusing on Mainline denominations' abandonment of any serious theological work and capitulation to secular trends.  An excerpt:

[T]he denominations were often engaged in what later generations would scorn as narrow sectarian debates: infant baptism, the consequences of the Fall, the saving significance of good works, the real presence of the Eucharist, the role of bishops. And yet, somehow, the more their concerns were narrow, the more their effects were broad. Perhaps precisely because they were aimed inward, the Protestant churches were able to radiate outward, giving a characteristic shape to the nation: the centrality of families, the pattern of marriages and funerals, the vague but widespread patriotism, the strong localism, and the ongoing sense of some providential purpose at work in the existence of the United States.

Which makes it all the stranger that, somewhere around 1975, the main stream of Protestantism ran dry. In truth, there are still plenty of Methodists around. Baptists and Presbyterians, too—Lutherans, Episcopalians, and all the rest; millions of believing Christians who remain serious and devout. For that matter, you can still find, ­soldiering on, some of the institutions they established in their Mainline glory days: the National Council of Churches, for instance, in its God Box up on New York City’s Riverside Drive, with the cornerstone laid, in a grand ceremony, by President Eisenhower in 1958. But those institutions are corpses, even if they don’t quite realize that they’re dead. The great confluence of Protestantism has dwindled to a trickle over the past thirty years, and the Great Church of America has come to an end.

And that leaves us in an odd situation, unlike any before. The death of the Mainline is the central historical fact of our time: the event that distinguishes the past several decades from every other ­period in American history. Almost every one of our current political and cultural oddities, our contradictions and obscurities, derives from this fact: The Mainline has lost the capacity to set, or even significantly influence, the national vocabulary or the national self-understanding.

Can Catholics and/or evangelicals fill the void?  Bottum has his doubts:

The evangelicals may have too little church organization, and the Catholics may have too much. Besides, both are minorities in the nation’s population, and they arrive at our current moment with a history of being outsiders—the objects of a long record of American suspicion, which hasn’t gone away despite the decline of the churches that gave the suspicion its modern form.

Perhaps some joining of Catholics and evangelicals, in morals and manners, could achieve the social unity in theological difference that characterized the old Mainline. But the vast intellectual resources of Catholicism still sound a little odd in the American ear, just as the enormous reservoir of evangelical faith has been unable, thus far, to provide a widely accepted moral rhetoric.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Obama's "Messiah Complex" (Or is it Bush's?)

Over at Beliefnet, Steven Waldman critiques efforts by the conservative media (and the McCain campaign) to create evidence of Obama granting himself Savior-like significance.  They do so, according to Waldman, by taking statements wildly out of context.  For example:

The line used in the McCain ad, a campaign memo, and on just about every conservative blog in America is Obama's quote: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Witnesses who attended the closed-door talk at which Obama suposedly said this have claimed that Obama's actual words were:

"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Waldman also compares the current rhetoric with the 2004 Bush campaign's efforts to signal that God had orchestrated Bush's election in 2000.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Faith-based lawyer advertising

The ABA Journal has a story on lawyers referring to their religious faith on their websites:

Among the mentions on [the lawyer's] firm site are the numerous mass tort cases that he handles, the multimillion-dollar settlements or verdicts he has won for clients and the Bible literacy classes, with a link, that he teaches at Champion Forest Baptist Church. The community page also mentions the Christian Trial Lawyers Association, which Lanier founded. Both his firm’s website and the association’s site mention Lanier’s faith and his profession.

For many reasons, I support a lawyer's integration of their own faith commitments with their professional lives.  I also think that it's important for clients to be aware of the ways in which a lawyer's personal beliefs might shape, or even limit, the services she offers.  At the same time, advertising a lawyer's religious identity makes me a little uneasy.  In a major metropolitan area, I don't think it's a problem because there will always be a robust marketplace of legal services providers who have no desire to scare off potential clients, or who have no relevant religious (or other personal moral) commitments to advertise in the first place.  I could imagine, though, that in a small Bible-belt town, it could be a different story.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Bix on Truth in Law

Brian Bix has posted Will Versus Reason: Truth in Natural Law, Positive Law, and Legal Theory.  (HT: Solum)  From the abstract:

It seems probable, and perhaps inevitable, that theorists about the nature of truth in morality must choose between reason and will - that morality, at its core, is either one or the other. What makes law distinctive is that it is, as a practical matter if not by conceptual necessity, a mixture of both. And it is this intertwining of reason and will, of normative system and practical reasoning, which makes assertions about the nature of legal truth, and theories about the nature of law, so difficult.

The arguments about truth in law are as much disagreements about what it means to say that a legal proposition is truth as they are about what makes legal propositions true. Are declarations of truth in law statements about legal norms and legal sources, or are they statements about the results of particular disputes or particularized inquiries?

And from the text:

I would not purport to resolve debates within the natural law tradition that go back many centuries. I would note that Finnis is right to raise David Hume’s is/ought problem to traditional voluntarist natural law theory (Hume’s argument, it will be recalled, is that one cannot deduce a normative [‘ought’] conclusion from purely descriptive [‘is’] premises). However, rationalism escapes Hume’s is/ought problem only by entering its own foundational conundrum: what can replace God’s will as a foundational axiom, as a justification for following all the specific norms that natural law will offer as part of a moral code?

The volume in which this paper will appear, Truth: Studies of a Robust Presence (Catholic UP 2009)should be a must-read for MoJers with an interest in philosophy.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Developing human capital

Our belief in the dignity of every person demands that we provide adequate resources to maximize a person's opportunity to develop their own gifts and participate fully in our shared economic, cultural, and political life.  The family environment into which a child is born matters a lot, of course, but so does early childhood education.  The GOP tends to focus more attention on the former (albeit with a tendency to offer rather simplistic answers), while the Dems focus more on the latter.  David Brooks, in a must-read column for those interested in these issues, laments that Republicans "are inept when talking about human capital policies."