Yesterday I made some comments about a posting by Elizabeth Scalia over at First Things.
I got involved in some discussion over at the site itself.
I'm not entirely happy with my comments there. It's not that I think I was wrong in what I said, I just think I could have said it better. Reading the commentary again, I think the commenter who signs himself "King" had the best argument and I recommend going over there to read him. There is also a final comment about the catechism that provides the following link and I recommend visiting that link as well.
Beyond that I have to say that something really shocked me about the discussion. I was stunned at the degree to which Elizabeth Scalia and some of the people who supported her side of the discussion have embraced Enlightenment deontology. This suggests that some "traditionalist" Catholics don't understand the Catholic moral tradition at all. They hold a view that just isn't Catholic and they don't seem to have any notion of the real richness and depth of Catholic thinking on morality.
I was also surprised that these same people have no notion that they have capitulated lock, stock and barrel to the Enlightenment in holding the positions they do. As one of the more astute commenters (in a post signed "AML") pointed out, even Aquinas, who is probably the most legalistic of the Scholastics, does not go as far as they do.
Catechetically speaking, something has gone deeply wrong.
Yes, something has gone terribly wrong. The self-appointed "Defenders of the Faith" against the big bad secular society should do some research before they open their mouths and spread misinformation.
ReplyDeleteThere is also at least one flaw in the article you cite. He gives the example of the attorney being asked if he believes his client is guilty. Under civil law and the American Bar Association Code of Ethics, an attorney who answered in the affirmative would have committed a crime and be disbarred, thus preventing him or her from ever practicing law.
The funny thing is that I am getting more and more suspicious that the thing that went wrong went wrong relatively recently (meaning in the 20th century).
ReplyDeleteAs to lawyers professional ethics, that is such deep water even I don't want to get into it.
I agree with you, I don't know that what went wrong is a recent phenomenon either. I think there have always been those who have thought they could "do Church teaching one better" in some cases taking a page from their fundamentalist Protestant next door neighbor in Kansas or Arkansas. If you look at the religious right in America, its not predominantly Catholic but fundamentalist Protestants.
ReplyDeleteI'm not fond of lawyers and have a hard time with legal ethics (oxymoron?) but my point about the article's attempt to use an attorney as an example was that it is not about mental reservation at all, it is very much a legal rather than a moral issue, and it carries with it the full force of civil law. Once a criminal defense attorney signs on as the attorney of record, under the law he has no latitude whatsoever regardless of his conscience. He must, by law, zealously advocate for his client. The attorney was a poor example for the author to have used to make his point about lying, which goes back to your original post about people pontificating about things they don't fully understand.
I'm not disagreeing with you about legal ethics. When I said the water is deep, I simply meant that I wasn't going to say anything for the same reasons that I don't try brain surgery; i.e. I'd only make a fool of myself if I tried.
ReplyDeleteBTW; Some of my best friends are lawyers :-)
I have three cousins who are lawyers. I also had one uncle (now deceased) who was a lawyer and the reason I didn't go into Law! I very much admire some of the public defenders I have had the good fortune to work with over the last 25 yrs. They work tirelessly for little money and few resources to zealously advocate for some of the least among us.
ReplyDelete