Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

If you're not familiar with this term, you should be

The term is "judicial oligarchy".

I first heard it back in 1996, when First Things published a fascinating and sobering symposium titled, "The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics" (November 1996). Authors included Robert H. Bork, Russell Hittinger, Hadley Arkes, Charles W. Colson, and Robert P. George. The introduction to the essays stated:

The proposition examined in the following articles is this: The government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed. With respect to the American people, the judiciary has in effect declared that the most important questions about how we ought to order our life together are outside the purview of “things of their knowledge.” Not that judges necessarily claim greater knowledge; they simply claim, and exercise, the power to decide. The citizens of this democratic republic are deemed to lack the competence for self-government. The Supreme Court itself—notably in the Casey decision of 1992-has raised the alarm about the legitimacy of law in the present regime. Its proposed solution is that citizens should defer to the decisions of the Court. Our authors do not consent to that solution. The twelfth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone (1872-1946), expressed his anxiety: “While unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive or legislative branches of the Government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of restraint.” The courts have not, and perhaps cannot, restrain themselves, and it may be that in the present regime no other effective restraints are available. If so, we are witnessing the end of democracy.

As important as democracy is, the symposium addresses another question still more sobering. Law, as it is presently made by the judiciary, has declared its independence from morality. Indeed, as explained below, morality—especially traditional morality, and most especially morality associated with religion—has been declared legally suspect and a threat to the public order. Among the most elementary principles of Western Civilization is the truth that laws which violate the moral law are null and void and must in conscience be disobeyed. In the past and at present, this principle has been invoked, on both the right and the left, by those who are frequently viewed as extremists. It was, however, the principle invoked by the founders of this nation. It was the principle invoked by the antislavery movement and, more recently, by Martin Luther King, Jr. It is the principle invoked today by, among many others, Pope John Paul II.

The symposium came to mind again (as it has many times over the years) when I read the following news piece from the Associated Press:

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

None of this, of course, is really surprising anymore. It is almost a given. It is a given. But, just in case you weren't sure what to call this sad state of affairs, there it is: judicial oligarchy. Read it and weep. But do so privately; you never know who might sue you for publicly expressing anguish over the demise of traditional, commonsensical morality and governance.

Pope Pius X: promulgator of "an audacious work of modernization"

From Sandro Magister of Cheisa:

ROMA, May 13, 2008 – Vatican Council II was not the only pivotal moment in the history of the Catholic Church in the 20th century. Another important transformation took place half a century earlier, with the pontificate of Saint Pius X.

This is the conclusion of an imposing two-volume treatise just published in Italy, entitled "Chiesa romana e modernità giuridica [The Roman Church and juridical modernity]," written by an illustrious scholar of ecclesiastical law, Carlo Fantappiè, and dedicated to a grandiose undertaking of pope Giuseppe Sarto, the new Code of Canon Law.

Pius X is remembered for his tenacious battle against "modernist" Catholics. His current profile is that of a pope of reversion and of anathemas. Not so. New studies are reinterpreting this pontificate in a different light, much more forward-thinking and innovative.

For example, his famous encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis," the centenary of which fell in 2007, was prophetic in its treatment of questions that are still relevant and central in the life of the Church.

And so was the new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Benedict XV in 1917, but desired and conceived above all by Pius X. This did not represent the Church falling back on the defensive, but was an audacious work of modernization. It reinforced the public figure and freedom of the Church with respect to the world.

Pius X rejected the philosophical modernization proposed by modernist Catholics. He saw this as a surrender to the secular culture that was eroding the truths of the faith.

But he was a decisive modernizer of the juridical and institutional form of the Church, taking from the liberal states of the time the structures that he believed were compatible with the theological nature of the Church itself.

Read the entire article.

"Introduction to Christianity": Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

"Introduction to Christianity": Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | Preface to the Second Edition (2004) of Introduction To Christianity              

Since this work was first published, more than thirty years have passed, in which world history has moved along at a brisk pace. In retrospect, two years seem to be particularly important milestones in the final decades of the millennium that has just come to an end: 1968 and 1989. The year 1968 marked the rebellion of a new generation, which not only considered post-war reconstruction in Europe as inadequate, full of injustice, full of selfishness and greed, but also viewed the entire course of history since the triumph of Christianity as a mistake and a failure. These young people wanted to improve things at last, to bring about freedom, equality, and justice, and they were convinced that they had found the way to this better world in the mainstream of Marxist thought. The year 1989 brought the surprising collapse of the socialist regimes in Europe, which left behind a sorry legacy of ruined land and ruined souls. Anyone who expected that   the hour had come again for the Christian message was disappointed. Although the number of believing Christians throughout the world is not small, Christianity failed at that historical moment to make itself heard as an epoch making alternative. Basically, the Marxist doctrine of salvation (in several differently orchestrated variations, of course) had taken a stand as the sole ethically motivated guide to the future that was at the same time consistent with a scientific worldview. Therefore, even after the shock of 1989, it did not simply abdicate. We need only to recall how little was said about the horrors of the Communist gulag, how isolated Solzhenitsyn's voice remained: no one speaks about any of that. A sort of shame forbids it; even Pol Pot's murderous regime is mentioned only occasionally in passing. But there were still disappointment and a deep-seated perplexity. People no longer trust grand moral promises, and after all, that is what Marxism had understood itself to be. It was about justice for all, about peace, about doing away with unfair master-servant relationships, and so on. Marxism believed that it had to dispense with ethical principles for the time being and that it was allowed to use terror as a beneficial means to these noble ends. Once the resulting human devastation became visible, even for a moment, the former ideologues preferred to retreat to a pragmatic position or else declared quite openly their contempt for ethics. We can observe a tragic example of this in Colombia, where a campaign was started, under the Marxist banner at first, to liberate the small farmers who had been downtrodden by the wealthy financiers. Today, instead, a rebel republic has developed, beyond governmental control, which quite openly depends on drug trafficking and no longer seeks any moral justification for this, especially since it thereby satisfies a demand in wealthy nations and at the same time gives bread to people who would otherwise not be able to expect much of anything from the world economy. In such a perplexing situation, shouldn't Christianity try very seriously to rediscover its voice, so as to "introduce" the new millennium to its message, and to make it comprehensible as a general guide for the future?

Read the entire preface...

The "Smackdown of the Week" is courtesy of...

... Martin Cothran of "Vere Loqui," who penned a devastating and hilarious fisking of John Derbyshire's "review" of the controversial movie, Expelled:

I have always admired G. K. Chesterton's dictum that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing badly, but I never appreciated the full scope of its application until reading John Derbyshire's recent review of Ben Stein's "Expelled" at National Review Online.

"What on earth has happened to Ben Stein?" asks Derbyshire. "He and I go a long way back." Are the two close? Are they old pals who have been through a lot together? "No," he says, "I've never met the guy." But wait. How can this be? How can Derbyshire have forged this bond of friendship with Stein without actually knowing him?

"Though I've never met him," he explains, "I know people who know him, and they all speak well of him."

Got it.

In fact, Derbyshire displays an amazing ability, far beyond that of the rest of us, to engage with people and things even though he has had no direct contact with them. Take "Expelled" for example. "So what's going on here with this stupid "Expelled" movie?" he asks--a question which could have been answered by the simple expedient of actually watching it. A man with Derbyshire's special talent, however, is not hampered by such constraints:

No, I haven't seen the dang thing. I've been reading about it steadily for weeks now though, both pro ... and con, and I can't believe it would yield up many surprises on an actual viewing.

That's right: Derbyshire reviews "Expelled" without actually having seen it! This is a man who has friends he has never met, and who can review movies he has never seen. It is perhaps fortuitous that Bill Buckley, the founder of National Review, recently passed from among us: this is a talent I am not sure he would have fully appreciated.

Read the entire post.

And for the record, I've not yet seen the movie, so I can't say much, if anything, about it. However, prior to the movie's release I did interview associate producer Mark Mathis. Go here to read that interview.

Ratzinger's Faith and Reason | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

Ratzinger's Faith and Reason | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | In Appreciation of Tracey Rowland's Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI

"Benedict believes that the Mass is a Holy Sacrifice, offered ritually as worship, not a fellowship meal, that those who attend do so for the purpose of Divine Worship, that music which is based on most contemporary popular musical forms is completely unworthy, and that everything that is related to the Mass and other liturgies of the Church should be marked by beauty. Beauty is not an optional extra or something contrary to a preferential option for the poor. It is not a scandal to clothe sacred words in silken garments. Catholics are not tone deaf philistines who will be intellectually challenged by the use of a liturgical language or put off by changeless ritual forms." — Tracey Rowland, Ratzinger's Faith

"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the 'Logos', as the religion according to reason. In the first place, it has not identified its precursors in the other religions, but in the philosophical enlightenment which has cleared the path of tradition to turn to the search of the truth and towards the good, toward the one God who is above all gods." — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Subiaco Address"

I.

The reading of what is billed as a "theology" book on a pope, of all things, will not seem to be what this book surely is to read, namely, a distinct pleasure. Aristotle warned us that if we do not take proper delight in all things, especially in the things   of the mind, we will not know the highest pleasures that are in store for us when we seek to use that given faculty we call intellect. Well, that is not an exact citation from Aristotle, but pretty close. Clearly the highest pleasures follow from our knowing the highest truths and the reality in which they are founded. The central point of this book is this: "What is the Christian understanding of God?" And what is the relation of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the God of the Philosophers? No doubt our best current guide to the answer to these fundamental questions lies in the work and pontificate of Benedict XVI.

This slim volume by Tracey Rowland is introduced by George Cardinal Pell. He remarks, "It is a sign of the times and a portent of the future that this excellent volume was written by a young, married woman" well on her way to "becoming Australia's leading theologian" (x). Tracey Rowland is from the Brisbane area, currently the head of the John Paul Institute in Melbourne, where her husband Stuart is a lawyer. She earned a Master's Degree in political philosophy at the University of Melbourne and her doctorate at Cambridge University in England.

Read the entire essay...

Ehrman and Wright debate suffering and evil

Bart Ehrman, former Evangelical and current agnostic Scripture scholar, and N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop and non-agnostic Scripture scholar, debate suffering and evil over on the Beliefnet blog. Dr. Scott Carson, a Catholic philosopher who runs the "An Examined Life" blog, offers some commentary. 

Lucy Beckett on "The Order of Love"

The Order of Love | Lucy Beckett | From the Introduction to In the Light of Christ: Writings in the Western Tradition

This book is about value, specifically the value to us now, in the twenty-first century, of some great texts written in relation to the truth of orthodox Christianity, or, in the case of pre-Christian texts, understood in the light of that truth. These texts, many of which have long found places in familiar versions of the Western canon, belong or are in various ways close to the Catholic, specifically the Augustinian Catholic, tradition, and it is the thesis of this book that their value--that is to say, their truthfulness, beauty and goodness--rests in their relation to the absolute truth, beauty and goodness that are one in God and that are definitively revealed to the world in Christ.

That the value of these texts is real, and that it is relative--but not relative to nothing--are both now highly contentious and in some academic circles even ridiculous statements. In the intellectual climate of the liberal West in our time, the very words "truth", "beauty" and "goodness" cannot be used without embarrassment except in relation not to God but to the individual, who, a biological accident in a random universe, chooses what seems, for the moment, to be true or good or beautiful to himself. That individual may defend such choices, but on personal, subjective grounds only; the one remaining moral imperative commanding general assent is that the choices of others must have equal status to one's own and should not be regarded as bad unless they do harm to others, measurable in a utilitarian fashion. Anyone may try to persuade others that his view, his perspective, is "better" than theirs, but this effort will be no more than a game, a power game, played in emptiness. Nietzsche, who presides over the contemporary academy, toward the end of the nineteenth century called "perspective" the basic condition of all life and the "will to power" the basic drive of the human world. "Truth", Richard Rorty, a strong philosophical voice on both sides of the Atlantic, has said, "is what your contemporaries will let you get away with." [1] In what the English philosopher Simon Blackburn has called "the après-truth salon", [2] temporary persuasion of more people than someone else can persuade is, while it counts, all that counts. The only intellectual consensus is that there is no consensus.

Continue reading...

Benedict at CUA: "Only in faith can truth become incarnate..."

From ZENIT, an initial report on the Pope's address at Catholic University of America:

Thus, the Pontiff said, a school's Catholic identity is "a question of conviction -- do we really believe that only in the mystery of the Word made flesh does the mystery of man truly become clear? Are we ready to commit our entire self -- intellect and will, mind and heart -- to God? Do we accept the truth Christ reveals? Is the faith tangible in our universities and schools? Is it given fervent expression liturgically, sacramentally, through prayer, acts of charity, a concern for justice, and respect for God's creation? Only in this way do we really bear witness to the meaning of who we are and what we uphold."

"From this perspective one can recognize that the contemporary 'crisis of truth' is rooted in a 'crisis of faith,'" Benedict XVI continued. "Only through faith can we freely give our assent to God's testimony and acknowledge him as the transcendent guarantor of the truth he reveals."

Papal pondering

Though Catholic institutions should witness to the truth of Christ, Benedict XVI affirmed, it is also observable that people are reluctant to entrust themselves to God, he said.

"It is a complex phenomenon and one which I ponder continually," the Pope confessed. "While we have sought diligently to engage the intellect of our young, perhaps we have neglected the will. Subsequently we observe, with distress, the notion of freedom being distorted.

"Freedom is not an opting out. It is an opting in -- a participation in Being itself. Hence authentic freedom can never be attained by turning away from God. Such a choice would ultimately disregard the very truth we need in order to understand ourselves."

Read the entire article. "A Penitent Blogger" has the entire text of the talk.

"Who is the most outstanding Georgetown professor...

...that best embodies the spirit of Georgetown?"

Why, a regular contributor to Ignatius Insight: Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., professor of political philosophy at GU. He is the winner of the Dorothy Brown Award, selected by undergraduate students at GU.

A full listing of Fr. Schall's columns for Ignatius Insight can be accessed on his Insight author page.

"When the Pope Meets The President"

That's the title of a National Catholic Register article (April 13-19, 2008) by Paul Kengor, co-author of The Judge. Kengor writes:

On April 16, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI will mark his 81st birthday with, among other things, a visit to the White House — only the second such visit by a pope in American history.

There, he will sit down with President George W. Bush, who will have welcomed him the day before at Andrews Air Force Base.

The New York Times and National Public Radio can be expected to run analyses focusing on how this president and this Pope disagree on the war in Iraq, just as they did in every story they ran on President Bush and the late Pope John Paul II.

They will indeed have a very good point. The president’s critics, however, will play up this angle to the exclusion of almost all else.

In fact, the big story between this president and this Pope — as it was with this president and the last Pope — has been their remarkable unity on the sanctity and dignity of human life.

Neither man majored in math in college, but they easily understand that 1,000 tragic deaths per year among enlisted soldiers in an American military operation is a smaller number than 1 million deaths per year among innocent babies in American abortion businesses.

(A truly illuminating article would be an analysis of why The New York Times and NPR are silent on the latter matter.)

Read the entire piece.