Mirror of Justice

The Feast of St. John Bosco

Here is a brief homily presented today on the feast Saint John Bosco given at Boston College to a congregation of students, folks from the local community, and several Jesuits.

Saint John Bosco

2 Samuel 7:18-19, 24-29

Mark 4:21-25

“Who am I, Lord, and who are the members of my house?” This was a question that would not leave David. Who was he—the youngest of a many sons, the one deemed insignificant, and yet the one anointed by God to be the king of His people. David built a house for God where His people would come and worship Him. Why, because the people would know the truth of God and His word that is truth.

In a sense, John Bosco, the founder of the Salesian Order, followed in David’s footsteps. Like David, St. John Bosco’s youth spoke of insignificance and humility, and like David, he, too, was destined to do great things for God. John was a talented boy, and he did not let the extreme poverty of his family interfere with his destiny prepared by God. In his early priesthood, John Bosco came to understand that there were other poor boys who needed help to become good disciples of Christ. So he took to tutoring poor children. A few at first, but then the numbers grew and so did those who came to help John Bosco. Perhaps with the model of the “oratory” of St. Philip Neri in mind, St. John established one and then a few small “oratories” to instruct these impoverished children in the ways of God and the ways of the world. Lessons in the catechism, confessions, Mass, and cultivating skills needed for the trades were the enterprises in which St. John Bosco found himself. The number of children who were the beneficiaries of his education of the heart, mind, hands, and soul went from one to the hundreds in quick succession.

By the time St. John died in 1888, there were well over two hundred such “oratories” in all parts of the world that were sending forth young workers for the vineyards of the world and of the Lord. The rule he wrote for the schools that he and other Salesians established was this: “Frequent confession, frequent Communion, and daily Mass!”

Don Bosco and the Salesians took to heart and practiced Jesus’s exhortation in Mark’s Gospel: a lamp is not brought into a dark recess and covered but placed out in the open where it will do good!

But this work of bringing Christ’s light into the world is not only for the Salesians, it is for us all who follow Jesus the Christ in the discipleship we share through our baptism. For those of us who are Jesuits and those who labor with us, we were recently reminded of this joyful responsibility by Cardinal Rodé (in his homily at the opening Mass of the 35^th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus) when he recalled that our work must be eminently apostolic with a universal human, ecclesial and evangelical fullness.  It must always be carried out in the light of our Jesuit Charism—which is the light of Christ and his Church universal.

We are asked to place this light where it is needed most—and reflecting on the world of today, there are many places where this need is great! As Cardinal Rodé again reminded us, the Church is waiting for this light so that the sensus Ecclesiae may be restored and reanimated—and in this fashion, where more is needed, more will be given. Not by acts solely determined by ourselves but by the guidance of the love of Christ that we bear, with St. John Bosco, that is the true and only light capable of dispelling the darkness of our world.

St. John Bosco, pray for us!

Recommended Reading

Larry Joseph, law prof at St. John's and acclaimed poet, has a book review in the new issue of Commonweal that is well worth reading ... here.

Are You a Christian? A Catholic?

In the Times Literary Supplement, January 18, 2008, Anthony Kenny reviews John Hare's God and Immortality:  A Philosophical History (Oxford 2007).  (John Hare, himself a philosopher, is son of the acclaimed Bristish philosopher R. M. Hare.)  The review, More Than a Game, appears on page 26.  I thought this excerpt in particular would be of interest:

     To be sure, in one of the most interesting sections of the book, the author reveals the existence of an unpublished text of his father’s, “An Essay on Monism”, written while R. M. Hare was a prisoner of war working on the Burma-Thailand railway.  This was profoundly religious, and argued that without faith in God, philosophy can never be a serious occupation, only a game.

     R. M. Hare himself, however, never published this essay, and in his late works religion makes only fleeting appearances.  There is no entry for “God” in the index of his book The Language of Morals.  What remained of the earlier faith, to judge by the published works, was a conviction that the world was such as to make morality viable, which could perhaps be called faith in providence.  Throughout his life, his son tells us, Hare attended Anglican worship regularly and used to recite the creeds.  In my own discussions with him, I found it hard to tell how far he accepted the content of those creeds. To those who asked him if he was a Christian, his standard response was “I don’t know. I’ll tell you what I believe, and then you tell me whether you count me a Christian or not”.

Catholic Justices

 

In the most recent issue of the Tulsa Law Review, Judge (and Professor) John Noonan has an article that "was adapted from remarks given at the Constitutional Day Lecture, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, Oklahoma, on September 20, 2006."  The title & citation:  The Religion of the Justice:  Does It Affect Constitutional Decision Making?, 42 Tulsa Law Review 761 (2007).  Read it!

Here are three excerpts:

     "Brennan’s language in Eisenstadt on reproductive freedom was subsequently the foundation of Roe v. Wade, in which he joined.  I have not understood how a Catholic or any judge who was guided by the terms of the Constitution could conscientiously do so.  But obviously Catholic consciences differ.  Brennan in Roe showed that they can differ on abortion.  It is not, I think, the business of anyone to judge the conscience of another." [763]

     "It is true that on the moral legitimacy of the death penalty Catholic teaching has changed.  Once accepting it as a necessary prerogative of government, the Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II has taught that death can only be imposed in rare circumstances and not at all if the defendant can be securely imprisoned.  There is a certain hesitancy in the teaching, whose logic leads to the conclusion that a state-sponsored execution is state-sponsored homicide; the pope and bishops do not denounce the government as guilty of murder but only plead for clemency.  The doctrinal development is not complete.  Yet I am glad never to have had to face a case where my vote would have confirmed the death sentence.

             Justice Scalia, who seems reluctant to recognize the doctrinal change, has written that if it has really occurred, all Catholic judges should resign as incapable of carrying out the law.  I read that statement as a rhetorical move.  A federal judge rarely is asked to impose or to uphold a sentence of death.  If the judge is conscientiously convinced that any taking of human life cannot be justified it is, I believe, his duty to disqualify himself if the law requires imposition of death.  I do not think that a rare recusal carries with it a declaration of incompetence to function as a judge ninety-nine percent of the time." (766-67)

     "Frankly, I find it difficult to understand the trust put in conscience when its theological roots are cut.  (I do not doubt the sincerity of the conscientious atheist—only his explanation for his certainty.)  But as long as there is a consensus that conscience is key, I will no more quarrel with another’s understanding of its power than I would judge the conscience of another.  From my perspective, it is this conviction at one’s inner core, uniting principles and experience and empathy, that counts most in judging.  It is here that the religion of the judge—not just this or that particular precept but the whole thrust of the judge’s commitment to God—can make a difference.  To measure that difference, however, belongs not to any human but to God. "  (770)

On St. Augustine's Search for Truth

"Faith and Reason Are the Two Forces That Lead Us to Knowledge " VATICAN CITY, JAN. 30, 2008 (Zenit.org).-

Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI delivered today at the general audience in Paul VI Hall. The reflection is the third in a series on St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

* * *

Dear friends, After the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, we return today to the great figure of St. Augustine. In 1986, on the 1,600th anniversary of his conversion, my beloved predecessor John Paul II dedicated a long and detailed document to St. Augustine, the apostolic letter "Augustinium Hipponensem." The Pope himself chose to describe this text as "thanksgiving to God for the gift he bestowed on the Church and on all humanity with that wonderful conversion" (AAS, 74, 1982, p. 802). I would like to return to the subject of his conversion in a future audience. It is a fundamental subject, not only for St. Augustine's own personal life but for ours too. In last Sunday's Gospel, the Lord himself summarized his preaching with the words "be converted." In following the path of St. Augustine we can consider what this conversion revolves around: It is definitive, decisive, but the fundamental decision must be developed and must be accomplished throughout our lives.

Today instead, the catechesis is dedicated to the subjects of faith and reason, which are the defining themes of St. Augustine's biography. As a child he learned the Catholic faith from his mother Monica. As an adolescent he abandoned the faith because he could not see how it could be reasoned out and did not want a religion that was not also for him an expression of reason -- that is to say, truth.

His thirst for truth was radical and led him away from the Catholic faith. His radicality was such that he was not satisfied with philosophies that did not reach truth itself, and that did not reach God -- not a God as a last cosmological hypothesis, but the true God, God who gives life and joins our very lives.

The intellectual and spiritual itinerary of St. Augustine is also a valid model for today in the relationship between faith and reason, a topic not only for faithful individuals, but for every person who seeks the truth, a central theme for the equilibrium and destiny of every human being. These two dimensions, faith and reason, should not be separated nor opposed, but rather go forward together. As Augustine himself wrote after his conversion, faith and reason are "the two forces that lead us to knowledge" ("Contra Academicos," III, 20, 43).

To this end the two famous Augustinian formulas ("Sermons," 43, 9) express this coherent synthesis between faith and reason: "Crede ut intelligas" (I believe in order to understand) -- faith opens the way to step through the door of truth -- but also, and inseparably, "intellige ut credas" (I understand in order to believe), in order to find God and believe, you must scrutinize truth.

For the rest, click here.

Indiana Coalition to Suspend Executions

A recent Notre Dame grad has formed a new organization, in Indiana, that aims to bring about a moratorium on the death penalty in Indiana.  Click here for more information, and to support the organization's efforts.

First Lady's "Catholic Schools Week" remarks

I am a big fan of Catholic schools.  Every parish should have one, every Catholic kid should be in one.  I also love Notre Dame's "Alliance for Catholic Education" program.  So, maybe it's no surprise that I liked this, First Lady Laura Bush's recent remarks at Holy Redeemer Catholic School, in Washington, D.C.:

. . . This is Catholic Schools Week, and that's one of the reasons why I'm here today.  It's the perfect time to recognize the contributions that Catholic schools make to students all across our country.  Students here at Holy Redeemer are among the 2,300,000 students in the United States who are currently attending Catholic schools.  The education you're receiving builds on a tradition of academic excellence older than the United States itself, dating back nearly four centuries.

Today, 99 percent of Catholic-school students graduate from high school -- and 97 percent go on to college.  That's an unbelievable record, so congratulations to everyone.  (Applause.)  But just as Archbishop Wuerl said, not only do Catholic educators develop young minds, but they also prepare children for lives of compassion and service.

The Catholic-school tradition is based on the belief that every child is blessed with unique gifts, and every child has unlimited potential -- regardless of that child's status or race or even faith.  In fact, 27 percent of the children attending Catholic schools in Washington aren't Catholic.  As the legendary Cardinal Hickey, Washington's Cardinal Hickey once explained:  "We don't educate children because they're Catholic, but because we're Catholic." 

Catholic schools can offer a choice to parents who want a good education for their children.  In 2004, President Bush signed the D.C. Choice Incentive Act, which established Washington's Opportunity Scholarships for children.  Over the last four years -- with the support of Congress and leaders in local government -- Opportunity Scholarships have helped more than 2,600 children attend private or parochial schools.  More than 80 of these children on Opportunity Scholarships are here at Holy Redeemer.  (Applause.)

With these scholarships, Washington students can transfer from underperforming public schools to a private or faith-based school of their choice.  Parents of children in the scholarship program report being more satisfied and involved with their child's education.  And studies show that the students who receive Opportunity Scholarships improve their own attitude toward learning.

On Monday, in his State of the Union address, President Bush announced two new ways to increase educational options for parents and children.  The $300 million Pell Grants for Kids program will offer scholarships to low-income children in underperforming elementary and secondary schools.  Children can use these scholarships to attend out-of-district public schools, or nearby private or parochial schools.

Since the year 2000, more than 1,000 Catholic schools have been closed or consolidated -- most of them in urban areas.  To help reverse this trend, President Bush also announced the White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools, which will take place in the spring.  The summit will bring together educators, community leaders, philanthropists, and business leaders.  Together, they'll work to raise awareness of the service that non-public schools provide to urban students.  And they'll work to find ways to keep schools open, so that parents in the inner cities can have educational options for their children. 

Members of the Catholic family, too, are coming together to help children in need.  Here in Washington, the archdiocese has formed educational partnerships with companies, community groups, and other Catholic schools.  One of these partnerships is the Magnificat program here at Holy Redeemer.

Just last year, financial shortages had placed Holy Redeemer on a list of imminent school closings.  But through the Magnificat program's partnership with Notre Dame, over the next five years, Notre Dame University will work with Holy Redeemer faculty, staff, and students to improve the school.  Notre Dame is providing technology, textbooks, and supplies.  The University will help Holy Redeemer improve its financial planning, and increase its parental involvement.

Enthusiastic educators from Notre Dame's Alliance for Catholic Education will join Holy Redeemer's outstanding teacher corps.  The Alliance for Catholic Education prepares talented college graduates to teach in rural or inner-city Catholic schools.  Through two years of teaching, and by attending summer sessions at Notre Dame, these teachers also earn their master's degrees in education.

After they receive their city assignments, ACE teachers often share apartments or homes.  They establish a strong community with each other, and then they bring this sense of community into their schools.  ACE teachers coach sports teams.  They direct choirs and school plays.  They run marathons to raise money for Catholic schools.  As they help their students build a superb academic foundation, ACE teachers are answering God's call to share their talents with those who need them. . . .

Through the Magnificat program, ACErs and the entire Holy Redeemer community are transforming your school.  Observers say that students' behavior has improved, and that you're able to focus more on learning.  Notre Dame alumni have rallied around the school.  One alumnus took the 8th-grade class on a field trip to a local book festival.  This summer, 40 Notre Dame alumni cleaned classrooms, painted hallways, and planted in the yard.  Notre Dame alumni host events to raise money for the Holy Redeemer scholarship fund. . .

Congratulations on Holy Redeemer's new partnership with Notre Dame.  I wish you the very best for Catholic Schools Week and for many, many more years of success at Holy Redeemer.  Thank you all, and God bless you.  (Applause.)

Now we can go to Phoenix and enjoy the Super Bowl!

New York Times
January 31, 2008

 A Monastery Opens Its Doors to Football Fans
By KATIE THOMAS  

PHOENIX — There is no sauna, no heated pool, no chauffeur or sommelier. In fact, no alcohol is allowed on the premises, and guests share a bathroom with their next-door neighbor.

But for $250 a night in a city where Super Bowl rentals are topping out at $250,000 a week for a mansion in Scottsdale, the sisters at Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery figure they have an offer that can’t be beat.

[Read on to learn more about the details of the offer, here.]

3 Cheers for the GOP

Growing tired of the sleepy tones of NPR, I've switched over to conservative talk radio for my commute over the past couple of weeks.  I have to say, I have found the genre to be entertaining, intellectually stimulating, and horrifying -- often at the same time.  I've only listened to a few dozen callers, I admit, but I've observed a common theme to their comments: the unborn are part of the human community; illegal immigrants and "terrorists" are not.  In this regard, let me give a hearty "Amen!" to the GOP faithful in Florida for making John McCain the clear front-runner for the nomination.  On talk radio, at least, he gets hammered most aggressively for his stances on immigration and torture (as well as campaign finance).  I don't agree with his unwavering support for the war, but I'm glad to see that the voters will support a candidate who speaks unpopular truths about the human persons in our midst.

UPDATE: In response to reader reaction, let me clarify: I am not suggesting that recognizing the human person in our midst requires supporting any particular policy stance on immigration, nor would I morally equate opposition to illegal immigration with support of torture.  I'm making a much less ambitious claim.  I have heard similar rhetoric employed regularly, but not universally, on conservative talk radio in debates on immigration and terrorism.  That rhetoric is, in my view, profoundly dehumanizing.

"Imagining a Pro-Life America"

Ross Douthat has a very interesting post, "Imagining a Pro-Life America", up at The Atlantic.  There's something in it, I suspect, to challenge everyone.  He opens with this:

[A]ny successful attempt, in a post-Roe world, to ban or strictly regulate abortion in the United States would amount to an epic social experiment, with no obvious antecedents in our own history or any other country’s.

I gather that what would make this attempt an "epic experiment" is not that there is anything novel or experimental about regulating abortion -- it was done for a long time, in most places -- but that it would involve re-regulating conduct, for reasons that are thickly moral, that has been controversially de-regulated.  What's more, he notes, "it isn’t at all the same country that it was the last time abortion was widely illegal. It’s a post-feminist, post-sexual revolution society, and any attempt at restricting abortion that hopes to succeed – whether legally, politically or morally – would have to take these realities into account[.]"

Now, Douthat does not proceed from here (as many do) to the conclusion that we should not regulate abortion, in accord with the truth that the unborn child is a human person, but rather to the suggestion that, while re-regulation remains a worthy, even compelling goal, there is "no question that it would require conservatives to temporarily table many of their longstanding policy goals - from cutting illegitimacy rates to reducing welfare dependency to limiting the size of government – in the name of the pro-life cause."

Catholics, Anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust

Go to dotCommonweal to read this important post by Notre Dame's John McGreevy:  here.  And be sure to read the comments too.

Pope's Lenten Message Focuses on Almsgiving

The Vatican today released Pope Benedict’s Lenten message, the theme of which is “Christ Made Himself Poor for You.” The Holy Father focused his Lenten message on giving alms, "a specific way to assist those in need and, at the same time, an exercise in self-denial to free us from attachment to worldly goods." Read the text of the message here and the Zenit news account here.

Catholic Blog Awards . . . Vote for us!

More info here.

2008 Catholic Blog Awards Coming Soon!

Nominations for the 2008 Catholic Blog Awards will open this year at 12:00 Noon CST on Friday, February 15, 2008 and close on Friday, Febrauary 29, 2008 at 12:00 Noon CST. Voting will begin on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 12:00 Noon CST and end on Monday, March 17, 2008 at Noon.

The Eve of St. Agnes—Green Bay, 2008

Avery Cardinal Dulles is having a little fun over at the First Things Blog.  Click here for Cardinal Dulles' parody of Keats poetry in a poem entitled "The Eve of St. Agnes - Green Bay, 2008."

"Pell Grants for Kids"

I suppose the political realities make it unlikely that anything will happen, but it would be great, I think, if these proposals, from President Bush's State of the Union address, were enacted:

Tonight, President Bush will ask Congress to support a new $300 million "Pell Grants for Kids" scholarship program to help poor children reach their full potential. Like the Federal Pell Grant program, which students can use to attend the public or private college of their choice, Pell Grants for Kids would offer scholarships to low-income children in underperforming elementary and secondary schools, including high schools with significant dropout rates.  These scholarships would help with the costs of attending an out-of-district public school or nearby private or faith-based school.

• The President will also announce that a White House Summit on inner city children and faith-based schools will be held this spring in Washington, D.C.  Non-public schools, including faith-based schools, have helped to educate generations of low-income students; however, they are disappearing at an alarming rate.  As we continue working to improve urban public schools through the No Child Left Behind Act, we must also work to preserve the critically important educational alternatives for underserved students attending chronically underperforming public schools.  This Summit will help increase awareness of the challenges faced by low-income students in the inner cities and address the role of non-public schools, including faith-based schools, in meeting the needs of low-income inner city students.

Pell Grants For Kids Will Provide New Options For Parents Of Children Trapped In Underperforming Schools

Pell Grants for Kids would support State and local efforts to increase educational options for low-income K-12 students enrolled in the Nation's most troubled public schools.  Under the Pell Grants for Kids program, the Education Department would make competitive awards to States, cities, local educational agencies, and nonprofit organizations to develop K-12 scholarship programs for eligible low-income students attending schools that have not made adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind for five years, or that have a graduation rate of less than 60 percent. 

• Students in chronically underperforming schools could use scholarships to pay tuition, fees, and other education-related expenses at higher-performing out-of-district public schools or nearby private or faith-based schools.  These scholarships would supplement aid already available through the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which would follow the child. 
• Pell Grants for Kids is modeled after the highly successful Federal Pell Grant program for college students.  The Federal Pell Grant program provides low-income students with financial support to attend any of more than 5,000 public, private, and faith-based colleges.  The same choice, flexibility, and support now available to students seeking a quality college education should be offered to low-income families with children in chronically low-performing schools. 

President Bush also calls on Congress to fund $800 million of scholarships for 21st Century Learning Opportunities.  These scholarships will give parents the opportunity to enroll their children in high-quality after-school and summer school programs aimed at increasing student achievement, including programs run by faith-based and community organizations.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program has helped more than 2,600 low-income students in our Nation's capital attend the schools of their choice.  The Federal government has funded this program since 2004 and has provided scholarships to some of Washington's poorest children.  The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program receives four applications for every available scholarship, and a recent poll found strong community support for the program.

A White House Summit On Inner City Children And Faith-Based Schools Will Help Urban Communities Prevent The Loss Of Educational Alternatives For Their Low-Income Students

Despite their educational successes, urban faith-based schools are disappearing at an alarming rate.  This is especially troubling for minority students.  Since 1970, the minority population at Catholic schools, for example, has increased by 250 percent, and the non-Catholic population has increased by more than 500 percent. Yet these important institutions are disappearing for financial reasons.  From 1996 to 2004, nearly 1,400 urban inner city faith-based schools closed, displacing 355,000 students into other institutions.

A White House Summit will unite educators and community leaders to develop local strategies to partner with these schools in serving our Nation's urban students.  The Summit will bring together national, State, and local leaders in education, policymaking, research, philanthropy, business, and community development to:

1. Draw greater attention to the lack of high-quality educational alternatives available to low-income urban students;
2. Highlight the impact non-public schools, including faith-based schools, have had in the education of youth in America's inner cities;
3. Increase awareness of the challenges facing these schools; and
4. Identify innovative solutions to the challenges facing these schools so they can continue serving their communities.

A great conference at CUA

More information here.

Center for Law, Philosophy and Culture

The Catholic University of America’s Center for Law, Philosophy and Culture presents a symposium, “A Common Morality for the Global Age: In Gratitude for What We Are Given.”

In response to the personal appeal of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, this symposium seeks to elicit ideas and concepts for the renewal of a global culture that can sustain the moral insight necessary for addressing our world’s pressing problems. Can we reclaim an original attitude of acknowledgement of, and respect for, the gift of existence that arguably has historically informed the world’s great moral and cultural traditions? Leading thinkers from philosophy, theology, ethics and politics will gather for several days of papers, discussion and common reflection centered on this question.

Thomas Aquinas and Christian Vocation

Here is a homily delivered yesterday at Boston College on the Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas—Mass for Vocations

2 Samuel 5:1-7, 10

Mark 3:22-30

Many years ago in a distant place a young lad encountered God. And from this time on his zeal to serve his Creator intensified. As Samuel reminds us: he was chosen by God to shepherd His people.

Of course, Samuel spoke of David who ruled as king for forty years. But, do not Samuel’s words also remind us of Thomas Aquinas whom we commemorate this day? Each had a vocation to serve God, albeit in different manifestations—David as king, and Thomas as teacher and author; philosopher and theologian; saint and doctor of the Church.

And as today’s Eucharist is our weekly Mass for vocations, it is on Thomas’s vocation that I shall comment, for the vocation to which he was called is, in reality, one shared by many—for it was not without its encumbrances, but it was also blessed with much grace from God.

From an early age, Thomas made his distinction in zeal for a holy life. But, his family—a noble one at that—did not share his enthusiasm. Parents and siblings dissuaded him, tempted him (it is said, even with prostitutes), and used other methods including imprisonment to divert his vocation. But he remained true to his vocation and his desire to enter the Dominican order. His shyness and humility were thought to be indicia of dullness; but in his studies, he excelled and surpassed the intellectual capacity of many of his masters in the Order of Preachers. This led Albertus Magnus to declare: “We call this young man a dumb ox, but his bellowing in doctrine will one day resound throughout the world.” In this surmise, Albert was proven correct.

It is true that Thomas went on to display his brilliance in matters theological and philosophical—or, was do I have the order confused? But, he also excelled in the pastoral duties of priestly ministry and was sought after for his preaching the Gospel.

Thomas’s life was rather brief by our standards today—he did not make it to his 50^th birthday. In his late forties, he laid figuratively laid his pen down one day (or no longer dictated to his secretaries). When his Dominican confreres urged him on, his reply was that of the good disciple: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value.” Well, that later point can be debated!

Thomas was a productive man and disciple. How? Because he understood what Jesus taught about our Lord being the vine and the rest of us are its branches—branches that are nurtured by faith to bear much fruit in God’s name. In spite of the theological controversies of his day, he remained firmly and resolutely attached to the vine—as St. Mark reminds us, a house divided against itself cannot stand. This is wise counsel for our own times in which controversies theological and otherwise seek conversion amongst the faithful.

To meet this controversies with fidelity to God was an ideal and a commitment that Thomas embraced—it was not only his vocation, it was also the essence of who he was—one called by his baptism to follow Christ, not only for the salvation of his soul, but also that of those whom he would assist to the present day and beyond. The model of Thomas’s vocation is a source of prayerful instruction for us all because his greatest personal desire was union with God.

And with this thought in mind I end with a story, a true story: in my early priesthood I had the blessed experience of concluding my studies in England before I began to teach. In short order, I was asked to serve Campion Hall as acting bursar when then bursar was away. This meant that I had not only the use of a nice office but also the keys—if not to the Kingdom of Heaven, at least to a well-stocked wine and spirits cellar. It was this office that I enjoyed: for, in addition to being a quiet place to study, it contained a number of artifacts that captured my fascination. One such appointment was an original cartoon given to a former British Provincial and Master of Campion Hall, Fr. Martin D’Arcy. The cartoon showed St. Thomas Aquinas ascending into Heaven—and clasping on to Thomas’s legs was a black robed Jesuit who looked curiously like Fr. D’Arcy.

When Jesuits would come to this office seeking some assistance from me, most would cry out in delight upon seeing the cartoon: “Oh, look,” they would say, “there is Fr. Martin trying to keep St. Thomas from entering heaven!”

But my take was different: there was St. Thomas fulfilling his destiny of salvation and discipleship by seeking his own salvation and trying to bring Fr. D’Arcy along with him.

That is what the faithful disciple does in his vocation: to seek God not only for one’s self but to try and bring along as many others as one can take.

Thomas Aquinas was faithful in the execution of his charge as one who chose to follow Jesus Christ. And, as fellow disciples each with our own vocation, are we not called to do the same?

Eugenics

A Return to Barbarity

Quest for Perfection Leads to Selective Killing of Unborn (for complete article, click here)

By Father John Flynn, LC

ROME, JAN. 28, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The quest for a perfect child is leading to the increasing use of techniques to discover possible health problems in the unborn. Normally this is not done with a view to healing, and results in the deaths of embryos considered imperfect.

It Italy court decisions are in effect undoing a legal prohibition against the use of such screening programs, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). A 2004 national law vetoes screening embryos before they are implanted in the mothers' womb.

Nevertheless, a court in the Lazio region of Italy last week declared this restriction as being "illegitimate," reported the Italian daily newspaper, Corriere della Sera on Jan. 24. Already in past months local tribunals in Florence and in the Sardinian city of Cagliari had come to similar decisions.

In the Cagliari decision the judge upheld a mother's request to screen her in-vitro embryos for a hereditary blood disorder, reported the Italian news agency ANSA on Sept. 25. At the time both the Italian bishops' conference and Catholic politicians were strongly critical of the ruling.

In fact, in 2006 the nation's top tribunal, the Constitutional Court, heard a challenge to the 2004 law regarding its banning of PGD, and the court upheld the statute. "I thought judges were supposed to apply the law and that their interpretations were based on what the Constitutional Court decides," said Monsignor Giuseppe Betori, secretary of the bishops' conference, in comments reported by ANSA following the Cagliari decision.

The Vatican also weighed in after the subsequent Florence decision. Eliminating an embryo is equivalent to homicide, declared Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, in comments reported by the Repubblica newspaper Dec. 24.

England go-ahead

The trend to increasing use of PGD is very evident in England. A couple recently received approval to test their embryos for a genetic defect that leads to high cholesterol levels, reported the Times newspaper on Dec. 15.

The approval, by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, was given in relation to a genetic trait that is a relatively rare condition and which can lead to the death of children at an early age. The Times noted, however, that the couple have a milder form of this genetic problem and that it could well result that the embryos would have a good chance of becoming children with reasonably healthy lives.

Shortly after this authorization it was argued that deaf parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so as to be able to pick a deaf child, reported the Sunday Times on Dec. 23. According to Jackie Ballard, chief executive of the Royal Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People, a small minority of couples would prefer to have a deaf child so as "to fit in better with the family lifestyle."
Some practitioners of embryo screening were not in agreement. "This would be an abuse of medical technology," stated Gedis Grudzinskas, medical director of the Bridge Center, a clinic in London that screens embryos, according to the Sunday Times.

Earlier in the year approval was granted to screen embryos for a gene that brings with it an increased risk of breast cancer, reported the Times on July 21. The article commented that not all those with the gene will necessarily develop breast cancer, meaning that the screening will lead to destroying some embryos that would have been healthy.

Enhancing humanity

Along with increased use of PGD to eliminate "defective" embryos arguments are also being made in favor of using such techniques to improving the human race. We should use genetic engineering and reproductive technology to produce "enhanced" people, argued John Harris in his 2007 book, "Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making People Better" (Princeton University Press).

Harris is a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester law school and a member of Britain's Human Genetics Commission.

The author does not settle for half measures. If we wish to make the world a better place we need to change humanity, he argued, even to the point where we or our descendants "will cease to be human in the sense in which we now understand the idea," says Harris in the book's introduction.

Harris adopts a utilitarian approach in which he maintains that such a course of action is not only desirable, but is also morally legitimate, as it has for its aim making our lives better.

The pragmatic orientation of his arguments leads Harris to deny embryos, and even newborns, the status of human individuals. Persons are properly called individuals, he advocated in one of the book's chapters, when they are "capable of valuing their own existence."

Another recent book in favor of genetically modifying future generations is: "Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice, (Yale University Press) by Ronald M. Green. The author, director of the Ethics Institute at Dartmouth College, is less extreme than Harris, but still declares himself in favor of interventions in our own and our children's genetic makeup.

Green did acknowledge that there are some grounds for concern over where such genetic modification may lead. While distinguishing his position from the more extreme attitude of seeing human beings as perfectly malleable he did, however, conclude that we should accept changing our genetic structures.

Perfection temptation

The pressure in favor of eugenics has not gone unanswered. Last October Nobel Prize winner James Watson declared that blacks are generally inferior in intelligence to whites. In an Oct. 24 article commenting on the issue, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson wrote about the eugenics temptation.

About 90% of fetuses found to have Down syndrome are aborted in America, he noted. Such practices give absolute power to one generation of defining what is normal and beautiful, and this inevitably leads to discrimination, he adverted. We should choose human equality over the pursuit of human perfection, he recommended.

Eugenics has long been condemned by the Church. In its 1987 Instruction on Respect for Human Life (Donum Vitae) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt with this issue, along with other questions related to artificial methods of reproduction.

One of the questions dealt with in the document, signed by the then prefect of the congregation, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, dealt with the question of the morality of PGD. If the prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo, and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing, then it is licit, the instruction stated.

Right to life

"But this diagnosis is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending upon the results," the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned. A diagnosis that reveals some illness "must not be the equivalent of a death sentence," the instruction added.

Eliminating embryos who suffer from malformations or hereditary illness, is a violation of the unborn child's right to life and as an abuse of the rights and duties of the spouses, the document concluded.

This teaching was confirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2268. In an explanation dealing with the Fifth Commandment that forbids direct and intentional killing, the Catechism specifically included eugenics. "Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority," the number states. Warnings increasingly being ignored as a post-Christian society, under the pretext of progress, returns to barbaric practices.

Happy Angelic Doctor Day!

Today is the Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas.

"When Catholicism was the Target"

I have an op-ed in today's USA Today about the Pope's visit, JFK's speech, religion-and-politics, etc.  Here's a bit:

Now, perhaps it reflects poorly on the state of political oratory that one of the most discussed, and most interesting, candidate speeches in the 2008 presidential campaign was delivered nearly 50 years ago. (At least until Mitt Romney's speech about his Mormon faith last month in College Station, Texas.) Nonetheless, we should not be too surprised by the Speech's staying power. After all, we Americans have long worried about, and wrestled with, the relationship between faith and politics.

At the same time, however, our public policies and aspirations have always been shaped by religious commitments and ideals. It is then appropriate, and healthy, that the religion-and-public-life themes elaborated in Kennedy's Houston speech remain part of our national conversation. Indeed, it would be strange, and almost un-American, if they were excluded or ignored.

Free Exercise v. Parental Rights

Howard Friedman comments on a recent Oregon Supreme Court case dealing with a dispute between divorced parents over whether their 12 year-old son should be circumcised.  The court ended up remanding the case for further fact findings (which is probably what I would want to do as an appellate judge in a case like this) and thus did not take the opportunity to address whether a 12 year-old has free exercise rights. 

I'm not sure we've ever discussed this question on MoJ.  Courts have spoken of children as religious believers and actors -- e.g., in the Gobitis dissent (the case in which the Supreme Court upheld a compelled flag salute statute as applied to 10 and 12 year-olds), Justice Stone asserted that it would deny the children's "faith as well as the teachings of most religions to say that children of their age could not have religious convictions."  In such cases, the children are on the same side of the dispute as the parents, and thus there is no need to navigate the tension between religious liberty and parental rights.

How would Catholic legal theory address this tension?  I presume that neither value (the children's religious liberty nor parental authority) would serve as an absolute trump, but that there would have to be some sort of context-driven sliding scale.  I'm not exactly sure what the sliding scale would look like, though.  I also presume that the Church would not support free exercise rights for a child based on the same criteria by which courts would defer to a child's articulated preferences in custody disputes, and that there would need to be a much greater level of maturity shown.  For older children, would it matter what the child aims to preserve or attain through the invocation of free exercise rights?  If a 16 year-old child wants to attend church, but her atheist parents have forbidden her from having any exposure to religious teachings, does Catholic legal theory side with the parents or the child?  Does anything change if the 16 year-old wants to stay home, but her parents compel her to attend church?

Darwin, Evolutionary Biology, and Theology

Ernan McMullin, now emeritus at Notre Dame, is. as some MOJ readers know, an Irish diocesan priest who is also one of the preeminent historians/philosophers of science of his generation.  In the January 26th issue of The Tablet, McMullin has a wonderful review of Francisco Ayala's book Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. The review is well worth reading ... here.

Faith and Alcoholism

No doubt some MOJ readers are dealing with, or have family members and/or friends who are dealing with, a drinking problem.  For a terrific piece on alcoholism, religion, and related matters, I recommend this essay in the January 26th issue of The Tablet:  John Waters, Finding God in an empty glass.   Click here to print/read.

I don't normally blog about politics but ...

... this was just too good to pass up.  Check out this article in the Onion.

HT:  Anthony Scaperlanda

Jesuit, sì; Catholic, not so sure (source: David O’Brien, who coined the phrase many years ago)

I begin by thanking Rick and Michael P. for their postings on the matter Majerus at Saint Louis University. I am inclined, not because of how I feel but because of who I am—a Catholic and a Jesuit (I hold that the latter must embrace and fall within the former identity)—to say that Coach Majerus has ventured into a realm where he should not have gone. I defer to the great wisdom of Ed Peters [HERE] who is both a civil lawyer and a canonist on the pertinent legal issues raised in this matter and has intelligently commented on the controversy involving Coach Majerus.

While being an admirer of the game of basketball, a coach I am not. I cannot critique Coach Majerus for things he has said and done on the basketball court in his capacity as a basketball expert. He has the authority to direct his team, but this does not mean he is beyond authority even on the basketball court. When he or a member of his team does something improper, the appropriate authority, i.e., the referee, can call a foul. And when it comes to matters of faith and Coach Majerus’s beliefs regarding the Catholic faith, he can also be held accountable by those who have the authority to judge such matters. In this latter context, Archbishop Burke possesses the proper authority to rule on matters of faith that emerge within his proper jurisdiction where someone has committed a foul. While I appreciate the coach’s assertion that he was educated by Jesuits, that does not mean he is above reproach on matters theological. In the past, a number of famous persons who led people astray were educated in schools where members of the Society of Jesus taught. That does not mean that former-students-now-famous-persons are beyond reproach on questions of faith regardless of the pedigree of their education.

Michael was kind enough to link a post to Professor Howard Wasserman’s views on this matter concerning Coach Majerus. I dutifully read all of Professor Wasserman’s careful thoughts along with the web log comments responding to what he had to say. I think Professor W. does not appreciate or understand some major issues regarding the Catholic faith in spite of his being a visiting professor this year at Saint Louis University, and, I am sorry to say, I guess Michael doesn’t either since he expressed his concurrence with the good Professor W.

Having said that, I am of the view that Professor Wasserman has explained his view in a helpful way so that I can take stock of his perspective even though I consider that it is wrong. But I cannot say the same of one commenter to the Wasserman posting who has this to say:

This post regards the hypocrisy of the Church, and specifically Burke; so, this is your heads up (to quell the pending psuedo[sic]-religious debate): Burke has no right. No. [sic] Right. The Court found that SLU does not control the school so Burke should keep his Kerry-hating lid trapped. Yes, you have the right to spew your hate (as does anyone) but no right to influence it’s President to fire the Fat Man. The Catholic Church has an unrivaled history of murder, bigotry, hate, expulsions, crusades, massacres, forced conversion and pogroms—many say which continue to this day. How quick we are to forget, Rev. Anyone rememebr [sic] the Second Vatican? [sic] The Society of St. Pius X? Hypocrites should shut the hell up.

This quotation is a direct one. I have not changed or corrected anything in it, although I have noted some mistakes in its expression. I hasten to add that these are not the views of Professor Wasserman since he expressed his position in a different manner. Sadly, the author of this response has little or no understanding of the Catholic faith or the proper role of a bishop in matters of faith. But, this view is out in the blogosphere taking its toll and making its impact on those who can be impressed by this kind of rhetoric. This posting reveals a kind of sentiment that one encounters more and more today: if you don’t agree with me, you hate me! Nothing could be farther from the truth when it comes to what Archbishop Burke has said and may do regarding Coach Majerus. Still, the author of this commentary holds a radical and erroneous view that the Church (our Church, to borrow from earlier postings) cannot correct those whose views depart from the faith and its vital, essential teachings. And this is what Coach Majerus has done: his views on important issues (such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research) depart from the teachings of the Church to which he claims membership. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the principal teacher, i.e., the local ordinary—Archbishop Burke, to correct those whom he has been ordained to teach and to lead when they fall into error. Coach Majerus has the responsibility to lead his team on the basketball court and to steer his charges away from making mistakes involving the game of basketball. When they do make mistakes, he has the duty and the authority of their coach to correct the mistakes made by members of the basketball team. In a parallel fashion, Archbishop Burke has his duty to lead the faithful and those who claim that they belong to the faith, and if Coach Majerus has different views on these matters which differ from those of the Church, he has committed a foul to which Archbishop Burke is the referee who has the corresponding obligation to take corrective action.    RJA sj

More on Majerus

With respect to the dust-up about Rick Majerus's comments, about which Michael blogged here, a few thoughts:

Like (I gather) Michael, I don't think, at the end of the day, it's reasonable to expect the President of Saint Louis University to admonish Majerus for expressing views contrary to the (clear) teaching of the Catholic Church.  That said, I think it's important to be more clear than many -- at least, the many I've heard discussing the matter on ESPN -- have been about the reasons why, and why not, this is true.

For starters . . . note to Michael Wilbon (of ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption"):  This is not a matter of Majerus's "freedom of speech."  Even if we put aside the fact that neither Archbishop Burke nor S.L.U. is the government, there is nothing about the "freedom of speech" that means you cannot be criticized in return.  Let's move on. . .

Second, perhaps more noteworthy than Majerus's statements about his "pro-choice" views -- what a shocker!  some Catholics are wrong about abortion! -- is his later statement, commenting on Archbishop Burke, "He's entitled to his opinion, but I should be entitled to mine."  Well, d'uh.  The issue is not about who's "entitled" to their opinions.  The question -- and it is a tricky one -- is whether it is appopriate for someone in his position -- a professing Catholic, at a Catholic university -- to publicly endorse a position that is contrary to Catholic teaching, thereby effectively using that university as a platform, or as a credibility enhancing credential, in a way that could cause scandal.  Majerus is getting a lot of praise for his said-to-be courageous insistence on taking stands for things he believes in.  Fair enough.  One would hope that some might question the appropriateness of his using his S.L.U. position to convert his views on a controversial position from "a private person's views" to "the views of the Saint Louis University basketball coach."

To be clear, I don't think a university, Catholic or not, can or should expect that none of its faculty or staff, even one as visible as the basketball coach, is ever going to say misguided things.  I do not think that a Catholic university -- even one that is serious about its Catholic mission -- should criticize or admonish faculty for saying such things.  (One wonders, though, what S.L.U.'s, or ESPN's, reaction would have been had Majerus appeared at a Tom Tancredo rally and complained about immigration, or at a League of the South rally and complained about Emancipation.) 

Third, one can think that, at the end of the day, S.L.U. should not directly criticize Majerus for his comments, and also -- see, for example, this comment by my colleague Cathy Kaveny -- that this was a missed opportunity for a different, and perhaps more constructive, response by the Archbishop, without embracing the (silly, I think) view that Majerus's comments are somehow none of the Archbishop's business.  Majerus, after all, is a Catholic.  It's entirely appropriate, it seems to me, wholly and apart from the question what the University should do, for the Archbishop to use the statements of one of the area's most visible Catholic laypersons as an occasion to remind the Catholics he has been charged -- he believes, by God -- with teaching and pastoring of an important moral truth about the dignity of human life.

Finally, and contrary to what I've seen suggested in some of the sports-blogsphere, the fact that S.L.U. should not directly admonish Majerus for his misguided views does not mean that Catholic universities should not, as a general matter, care about the connection between their mission and identity, on the one hand, and the intellectual life of their faculty and students on the other.  It would be unfortunate if the upshot of l'affaire Majerus were that the mistaken view that a Catholic university can only be a "university" if it cordons off the faith from its intellectual life became more accepted.

Judicial Independence?

It has been a busy and exciting week at the OU College of Law on the occasion of our alum Robert Henry’s investiture as Chief Judge of the 10^th Circuit.  The 10^th Circuit has been sitting at OU all week.  On Tuesday night four of the judges spent a couple of hours talking with students at a Federalist Society event.  Thursday morning Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sat with one panel, and Friday morning our three courtrooms were occupied by separate panels of judges hearing arguments. Thursday afternoon Justice Stephen Breyer gave the annual Henry Lecture (endowed by Robert Henry, his cousin Governor Brad Henry, and the Henry family) and Thursday night after dinner OU President David Boren engaged in a fireside chat (sans the fire) with Justices O’Connor and Breyer.