An (not the article)’s blog

A Message from Denial Method:

The show is now official.  Our CD release is set, the bands are confirmed, and this ALL AGES show is gonna be HUGE!!!  The day we finally get to unleash our album!  We are taking pre-orders for tickets now.  Gather you're friends, let us know how many you need, and then tell us how to get em to you and you're in.  This show WILL sell out, so let us know how many tickets you need as soon as possible.  This is gonna be great!

Check them out at:

ursession
the Sixty One
Denial Method Myspace

Dm_flier_small

Just recently, in my Foundations of Justice class, we spoke about the relationship between Freedom and Truth.  In Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, he proposes that Freedom must depend on [Absolute] Truth.  Freedom does not depend on the many choices we have, rather, as JPII says, "genuine freedom is an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man."  It is becoming who it is God has created us to be that allows us to be free.  JPII goes on to quote the Second Vatican Council, "For God willed to leave man 'in the power of his own counsel,' so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God."  Since we all have the free will to seek truth on our own journey, there is still a "moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and adhere to it once it is known."  To know what is true requires a duty, a duty to change.  (Which is why it irks me when people complain, "Everything has changed.  Nothing is the same."). 

My professor suggested that for those who believe that freedom does not depend on truth, but is only a component, believe that freedom is somehow "expanded."  I spoke with him after class because the description as "expansion" really was unsettling to me.  The expansion may be the many choices one feels is more available when Freedom is not bound by Truth, but it's not expanded.  I proposed that it is somehow reduced.  Here is my follow up email to him:

Professor Vischer,

As I was driving home, I thought even more about our conversation after class about the "reduction" of freedom as opposed to "expansion."  You had mentioned that with a reduction of freedom, it is possibly due to a loss of depth of freedom.

However, I would like to propose it is much more than that; it's the denial of what is real.  If what we seek is truth, we are seeking to be aware of what is reality.  In order for freedom to be fully realized, it should not be reduced to what we "want," rather an awareness of what is real.  More than that awareness, a total turning of the self towards that truth as Pope John Paul II suggests.  Man must be changed by the truth he realizes, whereby, freedom is true freedom from what is not real, freedom from what is untrue.

For instance, the example of the alcoholic would try to argue he is free from predispositions since he is choosing to drink.  However, the reality of the matter is he is bound by those predispositions as well as the denial of what is true/real.  He, thus, is unable to change until his freedom relies on what is true: he needs help, he needs change, etc.

What do you think?

Professor Vischer got back to me and this is what he said:

I think I understand your point, but it still can be hard to reconcile it with our more common understanding of freedom.  Take, for example, God's act of creating us with free will.  He knew that our exercise of freedom could result in our turning toward the "unreal," the false, the unhealthy.  It can't be that freedom consists only of those decisions that are most consistent with God's plan for us, can it?  Freedom also must include the possibility that we'll reject God's plan, mustn't it?

Here is my response:

I guess we would have to come to an agreement on what is freedom. Does freedom lie in the option to choose? Having many options?

You proposed that freedom includes the healthy decisions and the unhealthy or rather the capacity to choose the true or untrue.  I would suggest that true freedom lies not only in our capacity to choose but also choosing what is in accord with our nature.  Would not choosing the untrue decrease our capacity to choose, maybe even choose at all?  If choosing the unhealthy or unreal brings about death, then is not the capacity to choose lessened (eliminated in death), therefore, freedom decreased?  Choosing what is true, real, healthy, does not decrease our choices or the ability to choose, rather it upholds and expands freedom.

"Participation in the eternal reason of God."

Benedict XVI: Natural Law Is Base of Democracy

Says Ignoring It Is a Crisis for Human Civilization

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says that natural law must be the foundation of democracy, so that those in power are not given the chance to determine what is good or evil.

The Pope said this today when receiving in audience the members of the International Theological Commission, who had just completed their annual plenary meeting, held in the Vatican this week under the presidency of Cardinal William Levada.

The Holy Father discussed with the theological experts what he considers the antidote to "ethical relativism."

Natural law, the Pontiff explained, is "the norm written by the Creator in man's heart," which permits him to distinguish good from evil.

But, he contended, partly because of "cultural and ideological factors, today's civil and secular society is in a situation of confusion. The original evidence for the foundations of human beings and of their ethical behavior has been lost, and the doctrine of natural moral law clashes with other concepts that run directly contrary to it.

"All this has enormous consequences on civil and social order. A positivist conception of law seems to dominate the thought of many scholars."

Benedict XVI explained that according to these scholars, "humanity, or society, or in effect, the majority of citizens, become the ultimate source for civil legislation."

Unnecessary relativism

He continued: "The problem that arises is not, then, the search for good but the search for power, or rather the balance of power.

"At the root of this tendency is ethical relativism, which some people even see as one of the principle conditions for democracy because, the y feel, relativism guarantees tolerance and mutual respect.

"But if this were true, the majority at any given moment would become the ultimate source for law, and history shows with great clarity that majorities can make mistakes.

"True rationality is not guaranteed by the consensus of the many, but only by the openness of human reason to the reason of the Creator and by listening together to this Source of our rationality."

Freedom

Benedict XVI affirmed that natural law is actually a guarantee of freedom.

He explained: "When fundamental essentials are at stake: human dignity, human life, the institution of the family and the equity of the social order -- in other words the fundamental rights of man -- no law made by men and women can subvert the norm written by the Creator in man's heart without society itself being dramatically struck ... at its very core.

"Thus natural law is a true guara ntee for everyone to live freely and with respect for their dignity, protected from all ideological manipulation and from all arbitrary abuses of the powerful.

"No one can disregard this appeal. If by reason of a tragic clouding of the collective conscience, skepticism and ethical relativism managed to annul the fundamental principles of natural moral law, the very democratic order itself would be profoundly undermined at its foundations."

The Pope said that men and women of all faiths should combat this possibility.

He said: "Against such clouding -- which is a crisis for human, even more than for Christian, civilization -- the consciences of all men and women of good will must be mobilized, both laypeople and followers of religions other than Christianity, so that together they may make an effective commitment to creating ... the conditions necessary for a full awareness of the inalienable value of natural moral law.

"The advance of individuals and of society along the path of true progress depends upon respect for natural moral law, in conformity with right reason, which is participation in the eternal reason of God."

This guy is so funny.  hahahaha.... or should I say jajajajaja

"Y cinnamon twists."

FrWasson

My very good friend, I'd argue one of my best friends, Ryan, has a blog called Overly Caucasian. He was a volunteer at an orphanage, Nuestros Pequenos Hermanos after he graduated from college.  It's one of the greatest organizations.  Anyhow, he blogs his interactions he still has with the kids there.  He's a great inspiration to me and shares some insightful and funny moments...and yes, he's totally Overly Caucasian.

Before I came to the University of St. Thomas Law School, I thought alot about the type of lawyer that I want to be.  I don't want to get caught up in only the legality of issues, I want to make sure I actively think about legal decisions.  Of course there is a certain high degree of respect for the work that has gone into how cases have been decided, legislation that has passed, etc.  It's easy, as a law student to just accept the ideals of the law without discerning the moral dimensions involved or critically reasoning necessary to make decisions and act on them.  I am pretty sure I would not have understood the necessity in this if I had gone to law school straight out of college.  

For this Arizona girl, summer really doesn't end.  Summer is a year-round event where the only change is warm to really hot.  So imagine my dismay when my professor this past Monday announced, "For all the out-of-towners, summer is officially over."  It was just this past Saturday that the high was 88 degrees.  Then, the very next day on Sunday, the high was 66 degrees.  Monday's high was 64 as well as today.  The low?  In the 30s!!!  What the heck?  I'm going to try and rebel and wear my flip-flops for as long as possible.  I hate socks, they're so constrictive!!!

I just happened to find this article, "On Being a Happy, Healthy, Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, Unethical Profession."  It is written by the Honorable Patrick Schiltz whose biography I found over at Avery Index, is as follows:

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and served as an editor for the Law Review. He was a U.S. Supreme Court clerk prior to joining Faegre & Benson, where he became partner. Judge Schiltz left private practice in 1995 to become a faculty member of the Notre Dame Law School. He helped found the University of St. Thomas School of Law. He was nominated as a District Court Judge in December 2005.

Hmmm...I am even more certain now that I chose the right law school.  The Honorable Patrick Schiltz writes this article with the genuine, affectionate, commiserative, and truthful words of wisdom from a mentor to a student.  The following is the beginning excerpt, however, I encourage you to read the entire article.

Dear Law Student: I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that the profession that you are about to enter is one of the most unhappy and unhealthy on the face of the earth--and, in the view of many, one of the most unethical. The good news is that you can join this profession and still be happy, healthy, and ethical. I am writing to tell you how.

So, the past three weeks of my life have been all about law school.  I had a week of studying for a program that helped me learn how to be a law student.  Then I went to the program, and this past week I just finished my first week of law school.

The weekend before classes started, I took the opportunity to go on a retreat held by the law school.  There were about 21 students on this trip comprised of 1Ls, 2Ls, 3Ls and faculty.  On one of the nights, we were asked to lift up in prayer those things we saw as being possible obstacles this year.  Of course, like every other person in the room, my list was long.  As I sat there and prayed, it suddenly hit me, "I'm going to be a freakin law student!"  At that moment, I realized that I still had the opportunity to get up and run as fast as I could.

As my anxieties calmed down, I was assured once again that this is where I am supposed to be.  All of my weaknesses, all of my strengths will be played out in the next three years.  Even bigger, though, I am with certainty following God's promptings of my heart into the unknown.  I've been down this path before and He's always been faithful.  There really is nothing to worry about (except for those cases I still need to read and brief, those statutes in Civil Procedure and Sections 1-12 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts I still need to figure out and outline). 

The first day for me was full of nervousness and anxiety.  After all, who wants to be the first one to be called and made an example of with the Socratic Method.  Needless to say, with two cups of coffee, I was on edge all day.  Nearly had a break down by the end of the day.  However, with some comforting words from family, friends, and my boyfriend, I realized that I was psyching myself out.  In truth, the first day was NOT BAD at all!  In fact, the rest of the week was awesome!  I love my classes except I'm still trying to figure out Civil Procedure.  I'm sure there will be days when I will not know what the hell is going on in my classes, but I'm okay with that.

My favorite class by far has been Foundations of Justice.  It's a class that helps us visit where law intersects with morality and social justice.  Very cool readings and great discussions. 

Now, I am getting ready to relax, get ahead on some homework, and hang out with Rob!  Yep, he's coming today.  I'm so excited!!!