Category Archives: Uncategorized

On September 17, 2018, Dr. Daniel Burns, Assistant Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas and Visiting Research Associate in Politics and Fellow, Institute for Human Ecology, delivered the Constitution Day lecture entitled “What Makes Freedom of Religion Different from Freedom of Speech?”

In his lecture, Dr. Burns contrasted the First Amendment’s two guarantees: the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. He argued that free speech is central to our political process while religion, when politicized, is an impediment to it.

“The First Amendment is about two different things: freedom of religion and freedom of speech…We have free speech because every citizen has the right and obligation to contribute to common deliberations about the good and the bad; the just and the unjust,” Burns said. “We protect freedom of speech because we want speech to remain at the certain of our political activity. We protect freedom of religion, in part, because we want religion not to be at the center of our political activity.”

He concluded that the questions of ultimate meaning are best settled outside of law.

The event was co-sponsored by the Columbus School of Law, the Department of Politics, and the Institute for Human Ecology. Following the lecture, students, faculty, staff, and guests were invited to a reception in the Keelty atrium, where they had the chance to speak with Dr. Burns.

You can watch the lecture by clicking here.

Reposted from Columbus School of Law.

The Institute for Human Ecology is pleased to announce the launch of a new Master of Arts in Human Rights, designed for graduate students from the United States as well as abroad, with diverse academic interests and backgrounds, who wish to study human rights from a distinctly Catholic perspective. The innovative, interdisciplinary Master of Arts curriculum will draw upon diverse academic offerings throughout Catholic University and it will be awarded by the School of Arts and Sciences through a new Center for Human Rights associated with the IHE.

Through this program graduates will:

1. Become knowledgeable about the international legal structure of human rights;
2. Understand the Catholic anthropology of the human person;
3. Understand the natural law of rights and the place of rights in the political order;
4. Be able to analyze and discuss whether claimed “rights” are defensible as such;
5. Understand the intersection of human rights concepts and Catholic Social Thought;
6. Be prepared to contribute to the building of a culture of human rights that advances the good of the human person in community.

Following an introductory orientation week before the semester begins, the program consists of 30 semester hours of post-baccalaureate coursework, including a capstone course designed to bring together the insights from the other courses and which looks at the Church’s work at the United Nations and other international bodies. The capstone course will consist of a seminar, and requires completion of a research paper. The degree, which could be completed in one year, may include one or two summer courses.

For more information, please contact IHE fellow William Saunders, director of the Master of Arts in Human Rights program and director of the Center for Human Rights at ihe@cua.edu.

As part of the new program in human rights at the IHE, Law Fellow William Saunders taught in Europe for several weeks this Summer, in both Romania and Slovakia.  In Romania, he gave lectures on human rights at several international conferences and seminars. In Slovakia, he taught in the Free Society Seminar, which was launched by the late Michael Novak after the collapse of communism. It explores the principles and institutions necessary for a free society, and is aimed at graduate students from both the USA and Central Europe. Saunders taught on human rights, religious liberty, bioethics, and the rule of law.

What was the most devastating event in human history?  While, sadly, there are plenty of candidates, I would propose World War II.  It was a truly worldwide war, extending far beyond Europe as it involved international empires as well as nation states.  Not only did it wreck the economy of Europe and much of Asia, but it took the lives of millions. Estimates vary, but as many as twenty-five million military personnel died, and twice as many civilians.  The civilians were not only accidental victims, but were often the intended targets of military action. Further, millions perished in concentration camps, or were victims of torture or cruel medical experiments, in both Asia and Europe.

It is sobering to contemplate this carnage.

And it sobered world leaders after the war.  They formed the United Nations to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and to do so, among other things, by recognizing “fundamental human rights,” the “dignity and worth of the human person,” and “the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small” (UN Charter).

On December 10, 1948, they issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to further clarify and specify the “rights” that flowed from the dignity of the person.  The Preamble, referring to the atrocities of World War II, noted that “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.” However, the sure foundation for “freedom, justice and peace” is the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”

I think it is fair to say that (although a few nations abstained from the vote to adopt the Declaration) “the world” resolved to prevent a third world war by respecting and protecting the dignity of each and every human being.  The Declaration declared itself to be “a common standard of achievement for all peoples…”

While the Declaration is not a legally binding document, it is a strong declaration of principle, of a shared determination not to repeat the atrocities of the past.  For instance, remembering not only the slave trade but also the enslavement of entire populations during World War II, article 4 declares that “slavery…shall be prohibited in all its forms.”  Likewise, recalling the torture and mistreatment of political opponents, it asserts that “no one shall be subjected to torture” (article 5) and “all are equal before the law…” People are not to be thrown into prison or concentration camps at the whim of the powerful for “everyone is entitled…to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” (article 10)  Innocent civilians may not be targeted and killed for “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.” (article 3)

The Declaration is not perfect and few perhaps would agree with all its provisions.  But in this its 70th anniversary year, it is well worth our time to contemplate its provisions, and, as it urged, to “strive…to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.”

William L. Saunders is a Fellow and Director of the Program in Human Rights at the Institute for Human Ecology. He is also Director of the Center for Human Rights in the School of Arts and Sciences, and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty in the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America.

by Brandon Vaidyanathan, Associate Professor of Sociology

We live in consumeristic societies today in which we’re encouraged to formulate life-goals and identities by perpetually acquiring goods we don’t need for subsistence. The consumerism enshrined in all our institutions today—educational, medical, commercial, political, scientific, and even religious—leaves us mired in a kind of social adolescence, a short-termism that jeopardizes the well-being of future generations.

Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have equally lambasted such consumerism. The various economic, social, and environmental crises of our times underscore the urgent need to envision a future beyond consumer society.

What might a future beyond consumer society look like?

In a new book, edited by Prof. Mauro Magatti at the Catholic University of Milan, my colleagues and I propose an answer this question, which we call “Social Generativity.”

Psychologist Erik Erikson coined the term “generativity” to describe the stage of maturity in psycho-social development. In contrast to adolescence, when the personality is focused on identity and is incapable of caring for those around oneself, generativity denotes the stage of maturity in which one can make commitments even to future generations. The answer to the problem of consumer society requires looking for how this capacity might be institutionally cultivated.

Since 2012, the project team has been studying organizations in Italy that suggest a way out of the mess we’re in. This has produced a video archive of more than 100 case studies of organizations. Analyzing these data, we have identified three dimensions of socially generative action:

1. Authorization (the I-Other axis): Asymmetry in social life need not always lead to domination. Consider a model of parenting in which a child is brought into the world not as a project to control and dominate, but rather as a new life that one nurtures, so as to mature to generate and nurture life of his or her own. Generativity obtains under conditions of social asymmetry when something new is initiated, nurtured, empowered, and let go, so it can to thrive and even generate. This process is exemplified in organizations such as the Loccioni Group, a manufacturing firm that actively incentivizes employees to develop independent spin-offs.
2. Inter-temporality (the Past-Future axis): The generative logic bridges past and future. To be generative, one has to recognize that one is always generated. Sustainable contributions to the world are aided by one’s history, tradition, and cultural identity. This means not simply learning from ongoing experiments and mistakes, but from our history and tradition. Brunello Cucinelli, spurred by the humiliations suffered by his father as a factory worker, strove to create a business that places human dignity and justice at its core. Today his successful clothing brand donates 20% of company profits to charity; pays workers 20% higher than the industry standard; and pays for the training of young local artisans in the local region. Cucinelli’s projects operate on various time horizons: some 5, others 20, still others 200 years.
3. Exemplarity (the private-public axis): The generative initiative bridges private and public. It is a proposal to a community; it depends upon validation from and accountability to that community, which can assess whether their real needs are being met. A generative contribution isn’t necessarily a recipe or model to replicate, but can empower and inspire others to act. An example here is 24Bottles, a successful start-up from Bologna which produces multipurpose steel bottles for urban lifestyles. The firm invests heavily in the reduction of plastic bottles in schools, and has received significant recognition in national and international media.

Preaching “thou shalt not consume” isn’t going to solve the problem of consumerism. Our hope is that highlighting such mechanisms and examples of Social Generativity will harness our desire to generate or ex-corporate—which is as natural as our desire to consume or in-coporate.

It simply needs to be activated.

IHE Executive Director Joseph Capizzi will be speaking next Saturday, September 30th at the conference: Christianity & National Security: Exploring Church Teaching on Government’s Divine Vocation.

Providence: A Journal of Christianity & American Foreign Policy is hosting this groundbreaking two-day conference on essential historic Christian teaching about God’s purpose for government, starting with its vocation for security and public order. The conference will include leading scholars and practitioners of political theology and national security. They will address issues such as Just War teaching, nuclear weapons, Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Realism, nationalism, international human rights, American Exceptionalism, torture, and terrorism. This event is open to all but is especially aimed at Christian young people who are graduate students or early career. More information can be found here.

By Matt Hadro

Washington D.C., Aug 10, 2017 / 11:08 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Dialogue and prudent actions to uphold international resolutions are key to maintaining peace amid rising tensions between North Korea and the international community, one theologian said.

“Dialogue is critical to resolving this particular issue,” Dr. Joseph Capizzi, a moral theologian at the Catholic University of America, told CNA. “We have kicked the can down the road for 50-plus years, with regard to Korea.”