Mirror of Justice

A Ray of Hope

In response to Rick’s sadness over the assisted suicide case in Germany, on a more hopeful front, today Zenit reported that Pope Benedict authorized the promulgation of a decree recognizing that together with seven others, Servant of God Chiara Badano lived a life of heroic virtue.  One of the Focolare youth, she died in 1990 at the age of 18, of a particularly painful form of bone cancer, after leaving an extraordinary witness of light and faith, accompanied and sustained by the whole community and especially friends of her same age who lived the spirituality of unity together with her.  More about her life here and here.  In a world where the sick are often marginalized and profound isolation and loneliness often lead to desperation, her life shines as a ray of hope, and perhaps even helps to illumninate a path for healing the cultural maladies that lead to assisted suicide as well.  Amy 

Obama and CST's Constructive Challenge

In reponse to Greg's post on Obama's Catholic advisory panel, the challenge I would like to launch for our conversation here on Mirror of Justice during this campaign season is that we don't lose sight of the possibilty to be constructive.  I think we have the opportunity to in some way move beyond simply reacting to all of the ways in which neither party is completely in line with CST principles, and certainly beyond simply a negative reaction to NARAL's "scoring" system.  As a group I think we have the capacity to bring a significant contribution to the positive articulation of how CST might inform an approach to political life.  (Some of my own initial thoughts on this project are included in this reflection on Forming Consciences, which acknowledges both the priority of reducing abortions, and the complexity and prudential quality of the decisions which will make that a reality in our current system).

NARAL Approval Ratings: Let's Shift Gears

Greg, in response to your post can you (or anyone else) point me in the direction of the criteria for the NARAL approval ratings (other than as discussed in the WSJ editorial)?  I am wondering exactly what the Casey 65% approval rating means - eg, is one of their plus signs general access to health insurance for women?  In fairness to the complexity of the debate, and in fairness to the integrity of the folks involved, it seems that a NARAL percentage doesn't really give us the information that we need.  And more to the point for our discussion here, I wonder if we want to shift gears - why should the NARAL scale become a point of reference for our reflection on how we evaluate folks?  Why don't we make up our own categories, starting, perhaps, with the criteria discussed in the US Bishop's 2007 statement, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship?"   

Discrimination and Perspective

In response to Rob's post on when is discrimination wrong, I wonder if the hardest question here is the one of perspective, and whose perspective should control.  It seems like there would be not infrequent occasions when the actor's intention was not to demean, but where the particular discriminatory action is received as demeaning - or vice versa.  (I haven't read Deborah Hellman's work, she may touch on this in her book - I'm happy to be illuminated).  Seems like the core-CST question would be what vehicles might help bridge the perspective problem - solidarity?  participation?   

The Conversation That Will Happen

After some behind the scenes email, the MOJ conversation on sexual ethics is back on. We are going to start by focusing on Margaret Farley's book, "Just Love," with these two questions in mind: to what extent is her analysis helpful in shaping the questions that Catholics must face as they think about how the Magisterium's teachings on sexuality will be received / understood / framed within the broader culture; and how to dialogue on these issues in that context. For others who are interested in participating and/or following the conversation, we plan to blog on this starting the second week of December.

Michael P., Michael S. and Amy

Catholic Citizenship and Voting Resource Page

Folks, apologies for my long blogging hiatus.  I hope to make it up to you all this summer.  To start, Fordham’s Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer’s Work has just launched a new resource page on Catholic Citizenship and Voting.  As many of you know, I’m a fan of the 2007 document issued by the United States Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” so that’s the first link.  It also includes my contribution to the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies symposium on that document, due out this summer.  You may recognize some of the musings in my previous blogging on how the category of intrinsic evil should intersect with voting.  Here’s the blurb: 

Which voter’s guide gives the most reliable account of Catholic teaching? This essay compares Forming Consciences, the document issued by the US Bishop’s Conference in November 2007, with the Catholic Action Answers’ “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics.” It argues that Serious Catholics fails to captures the tradition’s nuanced intersection between moral values and their practical implementation in the sphere of politics; and that Forming Consciences serves as a more complete and helpful guide for Catholic voters.

Other musings at the intersection of Catholic social thought and political life touch on the topics of conscience, abortion, torture, and immigration.  Enjoy!  Amy 

In Gratitude to Chiara Lubich

I have just returned from Rome where I spent the hardest and most beautiful week of my life…. As many of you know, the founder of the Focolare Movement, Chiara Lubich, concluded her earthly journey on March 14, 2008.  I happened to be in Rome that day, at the conclusion of the tour which followed an interfaith workshop for a small group on “Love of Neighbor and the Legal Profession” held in Loppiano, the Focolare’s international community near Florence.  So I received the enormous gift of being present for the wake at the Movement’s headquarters in Rocca di Papa, and for the funeral on March 18, held at the papal basilica St. Paul Outside the Walls.

 

The church was packed, with overflow crowds (the reports run from 20,000 to 40,000) following on big screens in the courtyard, and through internet and satellite links throughout the world. 

Her coffin was adorned in the simplicity of three red carnations, in memory of the flowers she bought for a few cents to celebrate her consecration to God in 1943; and the open book of the Gospel, the guiding and revolutionary force for the beginning of the movement and throughout her life. 

The message from Pope Benedict read by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone during his homily captures the sentiments of gratitude that permeated every detail of the funeral: “There are many reasons for thanking the Lord for the gift given to the Church of this woman of intrepid faith, humble messenger of hope and peace, founder of a vast spiritual family that embraces many fields of evangelization.  I would like to above all thank God for the service that Chiara has rendered to the Church: a both silent and incisive service, always in harmony with the teaching of the Church.”

Cardinal Bertone’s homily captured in a stunning way the heart of her life and her legacy: here is Zenit’s summary.  I had the challenge of being in the translation booth when the Cardinal’s own voice started to crack as he quoted one of Chiara’s own poems: “When I arrive to your door and you ask me my name, I will not say my name, I will say my name is ‘thank you’, for everything and forever.” 

If you’d like a taste of the atmosphere, here’s a snippet, and further coverage by Zenit.  And at least for the moment the entire ceremony is up on the web and accessible.  The first half an hour prior to the funeral includes tributes from representatives of the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu communities that were touched deeply by her work in interreligious dialogue, followed by moving messages from Greek Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican bishops.  The parts I found especially moving were the witness of a Buddhist monk (on the counter at about 9:06); Cardinal Bertone’s homily (at 39:45); and the concluding good-byes (on the counter, 2 hrs and 2 minutes).

Together with hundreds of thousands of other people throughout the world, I have countless reasons to be thankful for the gift that Chiara's life was for the Church and for humanity, and now simply pray for the grace to be faithful to the profound legacy of life and love that she leaves, so as to continue her work toward the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer, “that all may be one.”  Amy

CST and Pedagogy

I really have no excuse for my long silence other than that I fell in love with an insane teaching method that gobbled up most of my January and February. 

For the first seven weeks of the semester here at Fordham I taught a one-credit mini-course in Catholic Social Thought and Economic Justice.  It’s basically a march through the economic encyclicals (from Rerum Novarum to Centestimus Annus) flanked by selections from the Ken Himes collection of commentaries, Modern Catholic Social Teaching, and further discussion of potential application of CST principles to a variety of legal, social and economic contexts.  Specific topics of discussion included the liberation theology debates, work schedules in law practice, tort law and a critique of consumer culture, and the debates about corporate social responsibility and corporate structures.  The class concluded with the question of how to communicate CST principles in a pluralistic profession. 

At the beginning of the semester I go around the room (it was an elective seminar with 16 students) to get a sense of how much exposure they have had to CST, or to Catholic teachings generally.  The answer is for the most part: very little or none at all, beyond elementary school preparation for the sacraments.  At that point I think the temptation for many of us is to find a way to “open head, pour in concepts”—to try to make up in some way for the lack of formation. 

Instead, I tried an experiment.  I decided to completely let go of my own agenda (other than that they focus on the church documents as primary texts), and let the conceptual flow for the discussion emerge from their own questions, as set out in their reaction papers and blurbs turned in 24 hrs prior to the class.  (This is where the insanity came in – the time to absorb their work prior to our class meeting, set up the discussion so that everyone would contribute, every week, followed by weekly comments on their papers in order to help them push the envelope on their conceptual development).

The result?  It was magic.  Perfect attendance.  A class dynamic that congealed almost immediately, and sparked a sustained energetic conversation throughout the seven weeks.  A sense of equality in diversity – they had very different perspectives on the material, but seemed to genuinely enjoy learning from each other.  Profound intellectual engagement with the documents and the various applications, and in many cases a capacity to appreciate the profound personal and spiritual challenges of CST.  For the Catholics in the class, I noticed that for many, even in just seven weeks, they came to claim their tradition in a pretty profound and genuine way.  As one student put it in her paper for the last class, “On my first day of work last summer, I took off my cross and put on a string of pearls, because I was afraid of what the cross might communicate.  I now think that was a mistake.” 

I will be chewing on this experience in preparation for the upcoming Religiously Affiliated Law Schools Boston College Conference panel on “Teaching Through the Lens of Faith:  Successfully Engaging Religious Issues in the Classroom” and look forward to further conversation with many of you about pedagogy and method while we are there.  Amy

Catholic Common Ground Conf on Ecclesial Movements

On a jaunt that is somewhat related to our broader project of tapping into resources for the "faith-life" connect,  I spent the weekend in Chicago at the Catholic Common Ground’s Twelfth Cardinal Bernardin Conference, which focused this year on “Understanding the Ecclesial Movements and their Interaction with the Local Church in the US Today.”  It generated an incredibly rich conversation about how to foster a better connect between local church communities and the resources that the ecclesial movements and new communities offer for formation, evangelization and building lively faith communities.  BC Theologian Robert Imbelli, also present at the conference, has noted some of the key insights, “Mysticism and Method,” over at dotCommonweal.  Amy

"No Law Respecting the Practice of Religion"

A heads up from MOJ friend Andrew Moore on what looks to be a fantastic event in Detroit on March 18:

The University of Detroit Mercy School of Law welcomes Dr. Leslie Griffin, Larry and Joanne Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics, University of Houston Law Center to deliver the 10th Annual McElroy Lecture on Law & Religion, Tuesday, March 18, 2008 @ 5:30 PM

"No Law Respecting the Practice of Religion"

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What if the drafters used the words “practice of religion” instead of “religion”? How would this change the jurisprudence surrounding this part of our Constitution? Dr. Leslie Griffin, Professor of Law at the University Houston Law Center will address this compelling question, focusing on government funding for religious organizations, public school prayer and free exercise claims. Through this exercise, Dr. Griffin will explore the meaning our courts have given to the term “religion” as they have addressed these critical issues. For more information please contact Prof. Andrew Moore, (313)596-0220 or mooreaf@udmercy.edu

Forming Consciences: Thank You USCCB

     Way at the top of my list of things to be grateful for this Thanksgiving is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops 2007 Statement on political participation, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

     First, it is amazing that in the wake of the polarization that emerged during the 2004 election, that the bishops were able to issue the document with almost unanimous (97.8%) approval.  This tremendous show of unity will go a long way, I believe, toward healing the divisions that had so marred our country and our Church during the last presidential campaign season. 

     Second, the document does a terrific job working through how the moral theology category of “intrinsic evil” should operate in how we make practical judgments in the political arena.  It gives a clear definition: “There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor.  Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons.  These are called ‘intrinsically evil’ actions.  They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be condoned.” 

     Then, in sharp contrast with the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics short list of “non-negotiable” issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual marriage) the bishops include in their examples: the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia; direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos; as well as other direct assaults on human life and violations of human dignity, “such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war.” 

     In a beautiful passage, it highlights how Catholic social teaching is not just about the “no” but must also embrace the constructive “yes”—a positive commitment to rolling up our sleeves to work for the “good that we must do.”  “Opposition to intrinsically evil acts that undercut the dignity of the human person should also open our eyes to the good we must do, that is, to our positive duty to contribute to the common good and to act in solidarity with those in need.”  In fact, the moral obligation to meet basic needs for food, shelter, health care, education and meaningful work, is also “universally binding on our consciences.”  The fact that the political choices about how to best meet these challenges are matters for principled debate “does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.”

     Mark, your seamless garment platform has arrived, and the beautiful bow on the package it its decisive call to unity, recognizing that Catholics may express their faith commitment in the social sphere in a variety of ways.  As we work on a variety of issues, searching for political and social remedies to the problems of abortion, war, poverty or a host of other threats to human life and dignity, “we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened.  We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.”

     In voting, “It is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our conscience.”  It is also important to note that “the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many.” 

     But again, in sharp contrast to the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, that’s not the end of the story.  In fact, the bishops clarify that a candidate’s support for intrinsically evil policies is not the only issue that Catholics should consider in deciding how to vote.  “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”  In fact, “there may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” 

     How about that dilemma that emerged for many in pews in anguish over whether it was a sin to vote for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil policies?  The bishops clarified that the key is the voter’s intent.  “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.  In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.”  Further, even when all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, options include “the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate,” or, after careful deliberation, voting “for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”

     Thank you, USCCB, for what I believe is a clear, courageous, extraordinarily helpful reference point for profound reflection on the gifts that Catholics can bring to our political life and the public square.  I see just a couple of tiny knits in the analysis (you all may have found others), but I think those can be worked through.  I’ll continue chewing on those over Thanksgiving and work them out in a future blog.       

     Other thoughts?  Amy

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

Here's the text marked as issued by the USCCB on 11/14/07 (it looks like just the written text, which I imagine will be formatted for print shortly)  http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Finn on the Self-Interest Conundrum

Susan, picking up on your exchange with Sr. Margaret John on self-interest, folks might find food for thought on this in Dan Finn’s recent book, The Moral Ecology of Markets.  I think it’s a terrific resource for all of us who are working with the economic implications of CST.

On page 56, Finn describes the distinction between psychological egoism (“all human action is inevitably egoistic, oriented toward the benefit of the actor . . . ‘Each of us is always seeking his own greatest good, whether this is conceived as pleasure, happiness, knowledge, power, self-realization…’”); and ethical egoism (the moral argument that “an individual’s one and only basic obligation is to promote for himself the greatest possible balance of good over evil.”).  He then outlines a number of problems with psychological egoism, including the underlying tautology— “If every conceivable human action can be explained by self-interest, then self-interest explains nothing.” (57); the distortions entailed in a description of the world “that cannot distinguish saint from sinner, martyr from murderer, altruism from selfishness” (57); and the challenges that it poses for common understanding—most people have trouble absorbing that “technical economic notion of self-interest can include concerns for others.” (57).  Finn concludes: “Leading a moral life is difficult and at various times requires the subordination of one’s interest to those of others.” (57)

Later he discusses two examples: first, presented with the choice of whether to buy dented cans of beans, leaving the good cans for other customers, he notes: “the self-interested thing to do is to buy undented cans, while the neighborly thing to do is to buy the dented cans.” (109).  But in a context where customer complaints may generate systematic improvement in production or delivery, refusing to buy the dented might actually be a service to the common good (or at least efficiency): “Self interest need not result in harmful effects for others.  It can … actually lead to a more careful husbandry of the goods of the Earth.” (111).  In contrast, faced with the dilemma of whether to buy a cheaper rug made by child slave-labor, one may not have the same hope for systematic change. The difference between the two examples “is in the institutional framework within which these two chains of events occur.” (112).  Thus it is futile to look for “a simple rule based on the intention of the actor to determine whether narrowly self-interested action is good or bad.” (113). 

            By way of probing the insights of Sr. Margaret John, here’s my question for Finn: Could this tangle all boil down to a natural law argument about teleological nature of human beings?  Is the reason that most people have trouble absorbing a notion of self-interest that includes others because of a widespread philosophical foundation of individualism?  If that is the case, is that a reason not to push the boundaries on this argument?  If a more relational vision of the self is at the foundation of the analysis, might that shift a sense of when one’s interests are “subordinated”?  Could a relational understanding of the self run parallel to how interest over time (long range interest) adds complexity to the analysis?  Might it actually be more neighborly to refuse to buy dented cans, communicate one’s concern, and push for a systematic change in packing procedures?  Is the bean example in tension with the list of concerns about psychological and ethics egoism?  Might a more robust image of the relational self (eg, the self not essentially in tension with others) make the moral life less “difficult”? 

Amy

Resources for Moving "Beyond Balance"

My short piece “Beyond Work-Life Balance” is has just been published in the Fall 2007 issue of CHURCH Magazine.  It argues that “balance” imagery can actually feed into what Gaudium et Spes termed “among the more serious errors of our age”—the “split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives.” (n.43), and gives a few examples of how a more integrative spirituality might play out in the context of large law firm practice.  All part of a larger project—and life’s work!—to explore the spiritual resources which might help expand the horizons of how lawyers think about time and the role of work in their lives, also developed in Part-Time Paradox).

Church Magazine, a quarterly on pastoral theology and ministry, is a terrific resource.  It is put out by the National Pastoral Life Center, whose projects also include the Catholic Common Ground Initiative and the Social Action Roundtable. 

Amy

For All the Saints & Other Treasures

   Speaking of summer reading, the new issue of the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies (v.46 n.1) includes an all-star MOJ line-up.  For those who are interested in the nexus between Catholic spirituality and law practice, it collects a good part of the series we did here at Fordham in 2005-2006 as part of our Catholic Lawyer’s Program: “For All the Saints:  How the Lives of Extraordinary Catholics Can Shed Light on the Ordinary Practice of Law.”  It includes contributions by MOJ friend Gregory A. Kalscheur, S.J., Ignatian Spirituality and the Life of the Lawyer:  Finding God in All Things—Even  in the Ordinary Practice of the Law; Fordham Law Professor Jacqueline Nolan-Haley, Finding Interior Peace in the Ordinary Practice of Law:  Wisdom from the Spiritual Tradition of St. Teresa of Avila and that MOJ super-star, Michael A. Scaperlanda, “Lawyering in the Little Way of St. Thérèse of Lisieux with Complete Abandonment and Love.” And here’s the link to my brief symposium overview.

   The same issue also includes an article co-authored by Steve Bainbridge, The Bishop’s Alter Ego:  Enterprise Liability and the Catholic Priest  Sex Abuse Scandal (I’ll leave it to Steve to tell you more) and a terrific piece by MOJ friend Gerald Russello, Catholic Social Thought and the Large Multinational Corporation.

   Thanks to the fact that my dear friend Rob has educated not only his seven-year old daughter, but also myself, about the feasibility and importance of healthy internet links, I hope that you can just press those differently-colored words and they will safely bring you to your intended destination.  If you end up at some other destination it's all Rob's fault.  Thanks also to Susan who while at St Johns negotiated a terrific collaboration between our Catholic Lawyer’s Program and the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, and to Mike Simons who continues to carry the flag. Amy

Response to Rob's thread, Abortion as Infanticide

Picking up on Rob’s “How Much Jail Time” thread, in “Abortion as Infanticide,” Jonathan Watson raised some fascinating questions:

“I do think that abortion is infanticide. I cannot see a reasonable legal argument for assigning a different punishment for ending the life of a human being at X point versus Y point” – unless one argues that “the purpose of criminal punishment of this sort is based not on an object external norm (e.g., all killing is wrong, and therefore, killing a fetus warrants the same punishment as killing an infant, child, adult, etc.) but on internal subjective depravity ( e.g., a person should be more emotionally attached to a born infant), and therefore punished for the greater depravity of the act required to kill an infant than kill an unborn.”

Are there resources within CST which suggest “jail time” is not the only way to express the infinite value of life and respect for the dignity of another person?  Within a CST vision, what else is happening within the criminal justice system?  It seems that within that vision there’s much more going on that an “external objective norm” or a judgment about “subjective depravity” – there is also, as Abby Johnson had suggested, concern for both the social context of what gave rise to the crime, and for the potential for rehabilitation and change.  Eg, drug use is a serious evil – but it’s not a given that putting drug addicts in jail is the best way to express society’s outrage, and certainly not the best way to help drug users rehabilitate.  Prostitution is a serious evil – but there’s a whole social context which needs to be taken into account, and there are many examples that the better way to resolve the problem is to work at the roots of the problem.  Before suggesting that abortion should be punished in a way which is identical to infanticide, I think we need a bit more contextual analysis and a much deeper, broader application of the CST vision of criminal law. 

Amy

Defining Intrinsic Evil

While Greg is packing his suitcase, I’d like to throw into the mix of Tom’s and Greg’s exchange about prudential judgment and intrinsic evil a passage from Veritatis Splendor number 80, which suggests a striking array of examples of “instrinsic evil” – and which I believe throw an important monkey wrench into conversations that try to figure out how Republican and Democratic party platforms line up with CST:

“Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image.  These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.  Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.”

John Paul then goes on to quote a section Gaudium et Spes from which in the context of discussing the respect due to the human person gives a number of examples of intrinsically evil acts:

Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator. (quoting Gaudium et Spes number 27).

Thoughts about what difference this makes?

Amy

New Website: Fordham's Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer's Work

“You’re going to be one of those parents who never let their kids out of the house to go to college.”  This was my colleague’s remark as I combed our brief to make corrections for the umpteenth time.  He was on to something.  After sitting on the Institute’s website for some time—ok, six years—we are now up and running.  Click here. 

Collecting scholarship and materials from our various programs over the past years, it hopes to serve as a resource to nourish “religious lawyering” programs across the United States and beyond.  We are—of course—still tinkering with it over the summer, so I’m all ears for suggestions or if you see glitches.

Amy

Barbie's World

Check out the “Barbie Girls” website flagged in the 7/23/07 New York Times piece about integrating MP3 players into toys.  I’d love to hear critiques from a CST perspective.  Beyond the obvious concerns about unabashed consumerism (my favorite feature is shopping for accessories for your pet), I was fascinated by the cultural implications of some of the mechanics as revealed in “tips for girls” and the message to parents. 

“When you register, you create a screen name to use on the site. Because anybody in the Barbie GirlsTM world can see your screen name, you don’t wanna include your real name . . . Instead, make up something new and creative!”  What are the cultural implications of play through screen names? Although there are obvious safety benefits, in this world of “fun, friends and fashion,” you are never yourself.

“If a girl feels that a friend or best friend is misbehaving, she can click “block” to keep that person from sending her messages. And she can instantly remove anyone from her room by clicking “ask to leave.”  Here too, there are important safety concerns, but at the same time, how do instant “block” and “ask to leave” buttons change how they perceive relationships and friendships? 

“We want you to make new friends, but we also want you to be extra careful about who you add as a friend, especially if you have never played with her before, in the real world, or online.”  While there are tight limitations on random chat in the mall, “best friends” can chat more freely because they have actually met in real life.  The definition of a “best friend?”: “To make one of your best friends in real life a best friend online, you both need to own a Barbie GirlTM. Connect your friend’s Barbie GirlTM to your computer and follow the on-screen instructions.”  What does this say about what it means to make and be a “best friend”?

The moral dimensions of the “tips for girls” are fascinating.  On one hand, there’s a constructive “golden rule” kind of message.  “Always be nice to others!  BarbieGirls.comSM is for everyone to enjoy, and that means treating others the way you wanna be treated.”  “Don’t say anything mean, rude, violent, or untrue about anything or anyone. Also, don’t encourage your friends to say any bad stuff.”

But I’m not sure about the tendency to rely on 7-year olds to intuit when something is wrong, and act on that intuition:  “It is always your responsibility to stop chatting or playing with anyone that makes you feel uncomfortable or that is misbehaving.”  “We sometimes review chatting to make sure people are being friendly and safe and are following the rules. But because we don’t constantly monitor the site, you should “report” users to us who are misbehaving.”  “You should also make sure that the other girls you play with or chat with follow the rules too.”  What does this say about authority – and perceptions of autonomy – in kids who are still pretty little?

Would love to hear your thoughts – especially those of you who as parents struggle with the implications of these kind of media.  I’m going to use the site as a springboard for a conversation next week with Focolare teenagers, who are part of their summer program are exploring how Catholic spirituality can sustain them in their everyday engagement with popular culture – I’ll keep you posted on their reactions and insights. 

Amy

Resources on Religion and Immigration

Folks who are following immigration debates might be interested to know that papers from Fordham’s 2005 conference, Strangers No Longer: Immigration Law & Policy in the Light of Religious Values, are now available on line in PDF Format through the University of Detroit-Mercy Law Review website as part of their special volume on law and religion. 

Contributions include Michael Scaperlanda’s keynote, Immigration and Evil: The Religious Challenge, and a response by Stephen Legomsky.

Michele Pistone’s (Villanova) contribution has evolved into a book: Stepping Out of the Brain Drain: Applying Catholic Social Teaching in a New Era of Migration (Lexington Books 2007). 

Here’s a nice plug for the book by Don Kerwin of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network: "This is a ground-breaking book and should be read by everybody who cares about the interplay between migration and development. Pistone and Hoeffner detail the contributions that skilled workers make to economic development and poverty reduction in their nations of origin. In an era characterized by globalization, they see the mobility of skilled migrants as a 'gain' for both sending and receiving nations, a gain that very directly addresses the root causes of migration."

Amy

Catholic Press Awards / Living City

The recently announced 2007 Catholic Press Awards includes a first place award for "Is Conscience King?," an essay I put together in part informed by our MOJ conversations about conscience and public policy.  I’d like to plug not so much the essay as the magazine. It can probably be said generally that the Catholic press is a real labor of love, and the Focolare’s monthly magazine Living City is no exception. Among the editorial staff, there is a genuine effort to live the spirituality of unity—which means listening to each other and welcoming the variety of perspectives which inevitably emerge as we comment on the issues of our times.  On the basis of this openness and love for each other, the hope is to demonstrate an approach to journalism which appreciates the seeds of a more peaceful, just, and united world.  I believe it is one of those lesser-known corners of the Church where the left-right polarization, and so many other divisions, are finding quiet but profound healing.... kind of like Eduardo’s recent description of Mirror of Justice.

Amy

Response to Tom on Altruism

Tom, a couple of thoughts on your questions about being “hard-wired” for altruism:

It seems like the reductive read on this research – in which morality and immorality boil down to brain chemistry – is its own distinctive problem that has taken numerous forms – as with the “evolution vs. religion” debate, or the “tension” between faith and science, we need to identify that the problem here is, as theologian John Haught put it, an insistence that science “tells the whole story.”  If we can get beyond that insistence, then it doesn’t strike me as strange that there might be some inner harmony between our biological / chemical make up, and the core spiritual and psychological dimensions of human nature.

Re theological resources for dispelling the worries, Trinitarian theology might also be a helpful place to look for an explanation – eg, here’s the beginning of a fascinating section in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church which I think gives a pretty good explanation of why we might be happy when we live for others. 

a. Trinitarian love, the origin and goal of the human person

34. The revelation in Christ of the mystery of God as Trinitarian love is at the same time the revelation of the vocation of the human person to love. This revelation sheds light on every aspect of the personal dignity and freedom of men and women, and on the depths of their social nature. “Being a person in the image and likeness of God ... involves existing in a relationship, in relation to the other ‘I'”[36], because God himself, one and triune, is the communion of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

In the communion of love that is God, and in which the Three Divine Persons mutually love one another and are the One God, the human person is called to discover the origin and goal of his existence and of history. The Council Fathers, in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, teach that “the Lord Jesus Christ, when praying to the Father ‘that they may all be one ... as we are one' (Jn 17:21-22), has opened up new horizons closed to human reason by implying that there is a certain parallel between the union existing among the divine Persons and the union of the children of God in truth and love. It follows, then, that if man is the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself (cf. Lk 17:33)”[37].

35. Christian revelation shines a new light on the identity, the vocation and the ultimate destiny of the human person and the human race. Every person is created by God, loved and saved in Jesus Christ, and fulfils himself by creating a network of multiple relationships of love, justice and solidarity with other persons while he goes about his various activities in the world. Human activity, when it aims at promoting the integral dignity and vocation of the person, the quality of living conditions and the meeting in solidarity of peoples and nations, is in accordance with the plan of God, who does not fail to show his love and providence to his children.

A few years ago I did a brief piece which touched on some of these questions after attending a Metanexus conference on the faith-science dialogue.  The argument is not well-developed in the piece, but there are interesting resources in the footnotes. (Can True Altriusm Ever Exist, on p.17 of the PDF linked here).

Amy

Response to Richard S. on the meaning of "pro-life"

Richard's analysis on the complexity of a "pro-life" position makes a lot of sense to me - because it grapples seriously with some of the very hard pratical questions.  I am attracted to this line: "Nevertheless, we think that, at least for now, the best way to eliminate abortion is not to threaten women but to empower them, not to reduce their choices but to increase them" - but I am also struggling with some of its implications. 

I agree that we need to empower women and increase their choices, but am also concerned that a woman's own definition of freedom, choice and power is often permeated and shaped by crushing cultural pressures that make it difficult to be open to life.  Should / can the law play any role in shaping or turning around those cultural pressures?  Perhaps it comes down to that really hard question, of whether we see law as a teacher of virtue, setting out an ideal; or as a tool for prudently managing and controlling socially destructive or bad behavior. 

A comparative analysis also strikes me as very helpful.  (Others who are deeper into the scholarship can guide me, I know that Mary Ann Glendon's Abortion and Divorce in Western Law is a good place to start).  Perhaps comparative work might also shed some light on these hard questions about the nature of law.

Amy

Mary's Month

Thanks, Tom, for flagging that really thoughtful piece by Richard Mouw on praying to the saints.  

I just got back from a May crowning which happened to conclude the noon mass at the parish next door, and the Mouw piece got me thinking, why is it that I love the litanies of Mary and the saints?  Perhaps part of the reason is their tremendous breadth, which speak to the variety of circumstances that I encounter in my own life and work – the same person is both “tower of ivory” and “refuge of sinners…” both “most powerful” and “most merciful,” both “house of gold” and “help of Christians…” and of course, “mirror of justice.”  Yes, it’s as Mouw put it, “a conversation with another Christian”, but also contemplation of an amazing example of what it means to live out the message of Jesus.  Reciting the litany of the saints you can’t help but be taken into the sweep of the whole of church history, and God’s concrete intervention through an incredible variety of gifts of the spirit….

I know we don’t post too much poetry here, but this is something that I wrote a few weeks ago that might capture something of this dynamic.

WAKING UP

Waking up cold

In the middle of the night

The blanket’s right there

It’s enough to pull it up

Or let myself be covered

By a gentle neighbor's touch

Mary in my life.

Waking up to the cold in the middle

Of the other’s night

The blanket’s right there

It’s enough to stretch

To extend its warm cover

Mary in our life.

Awake, to the cold

In the middle of the night

Huddled together to be warmth

The blanket’s right there

Mary for the world.

Amy

Against “Work-Life Balance”

  In the course of working on a short piece for the fall issue of CHURCH magazine, put out by the National Pastoral Life Center, I have decided to come out against “work-life balance.”

  Teaching CST and Economic Justice this semester, I was struck by how students are enamored with the balance scale image—by their third year of law school they seem pretty much convinced that just about everything can be sliced up and “balanced” to provide the right answer to any given problem.

  What happens when we apply this image to the role of work in our lives?  I see a danger that “work” becomes a completely separate category from “life”—and so can maintain its own rules and claims, as distinct from the “life” sphere where “personal” values hold sway. 

  Ultimately I think the “balance” image can actually exacerbate what Gaudium et Spes termed “among the more serious errors of our age”—the “split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives.” (n.43).       

  The Council’s suggested alternative is much more complex than a “balance.”  Following the example of Christ, who, among other activities, also worked as an artisan, Christians would be

“free to give proper exercise to all their earthly activities and to their humane, domestic, professional, social and technical enterprises by gathering them into one vital synthesis with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are harmonized unto God’s glory.” (n.43).

  Because of this, I’m coming out against “work-life balance” in favor of the