Heft, James L.

English

University of Dayton

University of Dayton Law Review Volume 14 Number 1 Vincent R. Vasey Symposium: A Christian Theology for Roman Catholic Law Schools Article 4 10-1-1988 Heft: Response to Rodes and Shaffer's "A Christian Theology for Roman Catholic Law Schools" James L. Heft University of Dayton Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Heft, James L. (1988) "Heft: Response to Rodes and Shaffer's "A Christian Theology for Roman Catholic Law Schools"," University of Dayton Law Review: Vol. 14: No. 1, Article 4. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol14/iss1/4 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Dayton Law Review by an authorized editor of eCommons. For more information, please contact mschlangen1@udayton.edu, ecommons@udayton.edu. RESPONSE TO RODES AND SHAFFER'S "ACHRISTIAN THEOLOGY FOR ROMANCATHOLIC LAW SCHOOLS"Father James L. Heft, S.M.*I wish first of all to thank Professors Rodes and Shaffer for a pa-per that forced me to think about basic questions, such as why educatelawyers, what does Catholic Christianity contribute to the education oflawyers, and what type of graduate from our school is the one in whomwe take the greatest pride-is it the one who advocates for the poor,who has served as a public defender not for a year but for 25 years? Orthe one who works as a senior partner in a corporate law firm, one whois most likely to repeat Auden's fine line, "trudging on time to a tidyfortune"?The thesis of their paper strikes me as radical and their tone pro-phetic. Indeed, those whose thoughts the authors explicitly footnote arechampions of the poor-Gutierrez, Dom Helder Camara, and WilliamStringfellow-or individuals who have read the gospel in a radical,even passivist way, such as John Howard Yoder. As I read through thepaper, several times I felt like the traditional Catholic who, confrontedby an intelligent Christian pacifist, stumbles about trying to defend thevalue of the just war theory, and in the very process feels a loss ofinnocence. At different points in the paper I found myself longing forgreater "realism," but at the same time wondering if my desire forgreater "realism" merely signaled an inability on my part to hear aprophetic word. It is on account of such personal reactions that I firstthank both of you for a provocative paper.I do have a few observations and questions, and then a concludingremark. I once heard Edward Schillebeeckx, the great Dutch Catholictheologian, remark that there is no such thing as "political theology";rather, there are theological reflections on politics. In the same vein, Iwould suggest that it would be better to speak not of a "Christian the-ology for Roman Catholic law schools," but perhaps more accurately,of Christian theological reflections for Roman Catholic law schools.Strictly speaking, theology is a systematic and synthetic vision of thefundamental truths of the Christian faith; this paper, it seems to me, israther a series of provocative reflections on the purpose of education in* Professor of Religious Studies, University of Dayton; B.A., B.S.Ed., University of Dayton,1966; M.A., University of Toronto, 1971; Ph.D., 1977. Father Heft now serves as the Provost ofthe University of Dayton.Published by eCommons, 198822 UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON LAW REVIEWa law school sponsored by a Catholic university.Also, it would help if you were clearer about what is meant whenyou say that a law school such as this one, is "present as the Church."I know what it means to say that the committed Catholics who gradu-ate from our law school constitute a presence of the Church in theirprofessional activity. I have also a clearer idea of what is meant whensomeone says that the Church is present in a seminary, in a catecheti-cal center, a department of Catholic theology. I think it can be seenhow a law school is not the same as a parish, where we would say thatthe Church is present locally. Perhaps the law school's presence as theChurch can be clarified further, especially in light of the fact that anumber of professors and students in our law School are not Catholics,and some are not Christians. In this light too, I would be interested insome follow-up on the remark-with which I agree-that "the theolog-ical discussion cannot be carried out well without the participation ofJews and non-Catholic Christians." Why do you say this? I would beinterested to hear what reasons you give for this statement.Your emphasis on service rather than power is, I think, well taken.Would it be more helpful, however, not to distinguish the two sosharply, at least in all instances? It seems to me that much of the effec-tiveness of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mahatma Ghandi was rooted inthe moral authority they both embodied and the moral force they bothorganized. Properly acted out, nonviolence is an effective exercise ofpower that can bring about change. Therefore, can we not also see agreat service rendered in the judicious and fair use of power? Wouldnot the fair exercise of such power be a worthy goal for Christians andothers as well?I would be very interested in hearing more about what a lawschool should, in your opinions, teach. I appreciate the way you castlegal questions in specifically ethical terms; for example: How does ourreal estate law affect people who need places to live? How does our lawon corporate mergers affect working people and their families? Howdoes our criminal justice system affect the ability of the urban poor towalk on their own streets? I do not imagine, nor do I believe that youdo, that such questions can be sufficiently dealt with in one course onlegal ethics, especially if such a course is taught from a perspective oflegal positivism. Probably one of the most serious questions facing usimmediately is the training of law professors who are capable of deal-ing and willing to deal not only with the legal question, but also withthe ethical dimensions of the legal question. Even more challengingthan shaping the character of students, it seems to me, is the need toform and shape the character of faculty so that they will come to ex-plore legal issues with a deep sense of the Catholic tradition, particu-[VOL. 14:1https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol14/iss1/4HEFT'S RESPONSElarly as it affects the legal profession.It seems to me that one of the characteristics of Catholicism is itswillingness to value both nature and grace, both Scripture and tradi-tion, both the priestly and the prophetic, and both the legal and theethical. Your paper, in my opinion, stresses effectively one side of thedialectic-that of the prophetic, that of the lawyer as the advocate forthe poor. But concerning this matter of prophecy, we should recall thatthe New Testament teaches that no one produces prophecy on his orher own; it is a gift for the community from the spirit. It is not a de-gree program granted by the academy. The best a degree program cando is train people to recognize and heed true prophets.By way of a concluding remark, I would like to emphasize whatwas not stressed in your paper, but what I presume you will certainlyagree with; namely, that besides teaching a greater sensitivity to thefundamental ethical issues, we need also to teach the skills and tech-niques of being a competent lawyer. As one legal educator said, "Com-passion without technique is a mess; and technique without compassionis a menace." We need to find ways to combine both technique andcompassion in our teaching. Howard Lesnick has said that most teach-ers use people to teach things, although true teaching uses things toteach people. Spelling out the implications of this position, he says:If we set about to teach people, rather than things (for example, Torts orProfessional Responsibility), what is it that we would teach them? Tosay that we would teach people Torts does not capture the point: Besidesmaking the whole thing a play on words, it seems to teach a subject,rather than use a subject, a thing to teach-what? Years after being ledto reflect on this question, my answer is that I want to teach people to bepeople, to become people, to become more fully human. And what thatmeans to me is to lead students to ask themselves: Who am I? What amI doing in the world? What do I want to do in the world?1It is such sensitivity to teaching people and not just things thatcharacterizes Professors Rodes and Shaffer's paper. Even more, ourspeakers have challenged us to think about fundamental questions notjust from a legal or even an ethical standpoint, but also from a theolog-ical perspective. They have, in effect, described how decades ago in ed-ucating lawyers we preserved an ethical tradition without explicating it,and how recently we seem neither to preserve nor to explicate an ethi-I. H. Lesnick, Remarks on Teaching Alternative Dispute Resolution, Harvard Law School,Oct. 9, 1982 (unpublished manuscript), at 1-2 as cited in Cramton, Beyond the Ordinary Reli-gion, 37 J. LEGAL EDUC. 509, 510 (1987).1988]Published by eCommons, 198824 UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON LAW REVIEW [VOL. 14:1cal tradition. They have called us to think anew as to how we. mightdraw upon the Catholic tradition to revitalize the ethics and form thecharacter of future lawyers. This is indeed a worthy but difficult goal.https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol14/iss1/4

Heft: Response to Rodes and Shaffer\u27s  A Christian Theology for Roman Catholic Law Schools

https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&context=udlr

Heft: Response to Rodes and Shaffer\u27s A Christian Theology for Roman Catholic Law Schools

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Dayton