Mirror of Justice

Reminder: Annual Meeting of the Conference of Catholic Legal Thought

REMINDER: The 4th Annual Conference on Catholic Legal Thought, will be hosted at Catholic University’s Law School (Washington D.C.) from June 9 – 11, 2009. If you are a law professor with an interest in Catholic Legal Thought, please join us for the 4th Annual Conference on Catholic Legal Thought, hosted this year at The Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C. As with the prior conferences, this meeting is for those law professors who are just beginning to integrate Catholic social thought into their scholarship and teaching, as well as those law professors who are more experienced. As has become traditional, the first afternoon will be an introduction to basic principles of Catholic social teachings. The second and third days will consist of more in-depth, interactive presentations and discussions. Our time together will also encompass daily Mass and spiritual exercises, as well as the opportunity for participants to share meals and much informal fellowship. For this 2009 Conference, we selected as our theme “The Legal Implications of the Work of Pope Benedict XVI” with the idea that our conversation would be organized around the central themes in his writings as both theologian and pontiff: Love, Hope, and Law. Unlike many typical conferences, we hope that this will not be a collection of presentations at an audience, but rather that it will truly be a discussion led by our presenters with all conference participants. To that end, a list of reading materials will be circulated to all registrants in advance of the conference. If you would like further information about the Conference and registration materials, please contact Prof. Lucia Silecchia (Silecchia@law.edu) before Friday, May 28th!

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8.

I haven't yet read the decision, but you can read it in full here.

Health Care Reform

According to a forthcoming Urban Institute study, in the absense of meaningful federal health care reform, "more than 60 million Americans could be uninsured within 10 years as insurance premiums increase to unsustainable levels for individuals, families, and businesses.  As a result, private coverage will fall, enrollment in public programs will increase, and the number of uninsured will rise.  Middle-income families will be the hardest hit."

I don't confess to have the answer on this issue, but it is clear that our current, primarily employer-based and voluntary, system of providing health insurance coverage is failing millions of Americans.    It is equally clear that this is unacceptable from the standoint of the social teaching of the Catholic Church, which views heatlh care as a basic human right, grounded in the dignity of the human person. (See, e.g., Pacem in Terris, par. 11, or JPII's 1979 Address to the Generaly Assembly of the UN.) 

The Catholic Health Association has suggested that "[t]he promotion, maintenance, and enhancement of health is a social good with societal responsibility shared by individuals, families, health care providers, voluntary agencies, employers, and governmetns."  How that responsibility gets allocated among those various groups so as to ensure access to health care to all Americans is something that must be confronted.

Vatican Examination of Women Religious

Re Richard's post: I may just be slower than others, but there was nothing in my quick perusal of the websites of the two communities to which he linked that gives me a clear indication of why the Vatican thinks this examination is necessary.

It may very well be that the examination is motivated by only positive goals, such as determining why fewer women are entering religious orders (although if that is the case, it is curious that the examination apparently excludes contemplative orders).  However, it is not suprising, especially given the separate doctrinal investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, that some are suspicious that the examination is more about making sure women religious are toeing the line than anything else.  I will be delighted if that suspicion is unfounded.

A Jesuit Law School: What's the Difference

Yesterday I participated in a program at Loyola Law School that aimed at dialogue over what it means for a law school to be Jesuit and Catholic.  MOJ'er John Breen organized and moderated the event, which included myself, Vince Rougeau (Notre Dame) and Tom Kohler (Boston College).  We each reflected on the broad topic of what it means to say that a law school is Catholic and shared how the Catholic tradition is reflected in our own work at the Catholic law schools with which we are affiliated.  Tom started us off with a talk that addressed, among other things, the integral relationship between law and religion and between religion and higher education.  Vince then talked about the influence of Catholic Social Thought on his teaching, ideas of service and scholarship.

I expressed my view there are two separate aspects to what is (or ought to be) distinctive about a Jesuit and Catholic law school as opposed to a secular one, the first having to do with formation and the second having to do with the transmission of the Catholic intellectual tradition.

With respect to the former, from a Jesuit or Ignatian perspective (which views God as present in all things and our task as determineing what is our role in God's plan of salvation for the world), I think law school needs to be viewed as a 3-year process of discernment of who our students will be in the world and how they will participate in God’s plan for the salvation of the world. That means that a Catholic and Jesuit law school is about more than simply producing fine lawyers. (Of course it has to also do that, but it can’t be doing just that.) The implication is that those of us involved in Catholic and Jesuit law schools need to continually ask ourselves: what are we doing to help students discern their place and their vocation? What are we doing to help them discover who they are and how they should live their lives.  During my presentation, I talked a little about some of the things we do at the University of St. Thomas to do just that.

I then spent some time talking about the ways in which my scholarship in recent years has addressed the intersection of Catholic thought and the law.  After the three presentations, we had some lively discussion (followed by a wonderful dinner and great conversation). 

I hope this program was the beginning of continuing dialogue at Loyola on this important subject.  As I said at the end of my talk, there are a lot of ways a Catholic and Jesuit law school and implement its tasks re formation aand transmission of the Catholic intellectual tradition.  The Catholic and Jesuit identiy can mean a lot of things.  But it can't mean nothing.  There has to be some intentional effort to live out the religious mission of the school.

A Tree Grows in Oklahoma City

Re Michael S.'s reminder  of the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing: while visiting them last spring, Michael and his wife, Maria, took me to visit the site.  Many things about the visit moved me, but one of most powerful parts of the experience for me was the American Elm tree standing on the plaza, called the "Survivor Tree" becuase it remarkably continues to grow despite its proximity to so much that was destroyed in the bombing.  During this Easter season, it stands as a wonderful reminder of resurrection.  I talk a bit about the symbolism of the tree in a reflection I posted here.

Easter Triduum

This evening begins the three day period referred to as the Easter Triduum.  Those of us who are Catholics on this blog often disagree on any number of issues, as our posts make quite clear.  But what we pray with and celebrate on these days is something we share as members of one faith - the central events of Christ's life: the Last Supper (about which I reflected at more length this morning here), Christ's crucifixion and time in the tomb and, most fundamentally, His Resurrection.  While I am not suggesting we put aside our differences (or suspend talking about them), I do encourage us to spend time reflecting during these days on God's incredible love made manifest in the events we celebrate.

Have a blessed Triduum.

Will v. Intellect and SSM

I've been trying since this morning to find some time to respond to Robert Araujo's post of this morning, criticizing the Iowa decision invalidating a ban on same-sex marriage.  I have difficulty understanding the distinction he draws between will and intellect as saying anything other than it is will he disagrees with the arguments raised in the decision.  In my view, the support he gives for his distinction is more than a little questionable.

His post suggests two things he labels products of the will rather than products of reason.  The first is his criticiam of the court's "conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesom environmnet as opposite-sex couples."  It is not clear why he calls that conclusion a product of will rather than reason except for his disagreement with it.  I'm guessing it has something to do with his suggestion that the research relied on by the court is not "specified or identified."  Yet, interestingly, his subsequent post replying to Rob's response to his earlier post offers no evidence for why "it is clear from [his] point of view, [that] same-sex couples cannot offer, in spite of all best efforts, what the opposite-sex couple can to children."  I'm finding it difficult to understand why his conclusion here is any more a product of intellect (or less a product of will) than the court's conclusion on this issue.

His second piece of evidence is the court's discussion of "Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage."  He characterizes the court as suggesting that "not all religious views are impermissible."  However, the court does not say, as he suggests it does, (a) some religions oppose; (b) religion is not a permissible basis; but (c) some religions reach the opposite conclusion and we rely on those.  Instead, the court says (a) some religious groups oppose; (b) some relgious groups reach the opposite conclusion; and (c) this contrast of opinions supports not using religious based rationales to test a statute's constitutionality.  I agree that Robert's characterization of the opinion makes it sound silly; it is, however, not an accurate characterization.

 

Civility and Mutual Respect among "Conservative" and "Progressive" Catholics

The initial spark for the current ongoing discussion about "conservative" and "progressive' Catholics was a concern over the tone of a particular post.  One of the historical strengths of this site has always been out ability to disagree - sometimes forcefully - without personal attack and insult.  At least some of us have been concerned in recent months that that is less true now than it once was.  While I appreciate that perceptions as to whether a post is unacceptably offensive will vary, it is good to remind ourselves periodically of our need as Christians to maintain a tone and stance of civility, mutual respect and brotherly/sisterly love as we conduct our conversations.  In that vein, I think Amy's  post yesterday is particuarly welcome both regarding how one ought to react to another's post and how one ought to frame one's own response.

As to the direction we've veered in the discussion, I think a number of the posts demonstrate the difficulty of characterzing people.  Part of that is that there are different things going on: political conservatism or liberalism (or progressivism), degree of adherence to the Magisterium, differences in interpretation of the Magisterium, and many people don't fall neatly into one category or another.  So I've been very nervous at various people's attempts (either in posts or private e-mails over the past few days) to count up how many people are one one side or another, totally apart form the presumption involved in the characterization.

In any event, I trust we all agree that however one measures it, the site can not perform its function unless there is a broad diversity of views being actually expressed in our posts. 

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today we celebrate MLK Day, in recognition of the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to end racial segregation and other forms of racial discrimination through nonviolent means.  On the day of his actual birthday, I posted on my blog an excerpt from King's 1956 imaginary letter from St. Paul to American Christians, in which St. Paul urges us to keep our "moral advances abreast" with our scientific advances.  It is a letter worth reading as we all struggle with living in the world without being conformed to the world.

(I also posted today an excerpt from another King sermon, titled Garden of Gethsemene.)