The Usual Suspects and The Ordinary Religion of Law School

The following is a reflection piece I wrote for my Foundations of Justice class, the kind of class most law schools do not offer, one of the reasons i really appreciate St. Thomas.

“How negligent was the rape victim?” was the question in Wassell v. Addams, a case in our Torts class meant to illustrate the consequences of various comparative fault systems. Should a victim that is also negligent be allowed to recover from another negligent party? What if they are more than 50% at fault? And if the court of appeals disagrees with the jury’s decision, can they over rule it? These were the issues that the text sought to elucidate.

In Ms. Wassell’s case, after opening the door to her motel room at 2am, she found a nicely dressed, but “confused” man at her door asking for a glass of water, she returned with the drink to find him sitting at the small table in the room. Shortly afterward he raped her.* A young and naive women from a small town, she sued the motel owner for not warning her of the dangers of the neighborhood. But a “hardened jury” in her lawyer’s words, found her to be 97% negligent. In an interesting twist, the motel’s 3% of negligence covered her medical and counseling bills to the dollar.

What stood out to me at the time was not so much the case, problematic as it was, but the dynamics of the class discussion. The usual suspects made the usual arguments, reflecting if not the ordinary religion of law school, then at least the ordinary religion of their upbringing. Crampton’s comment that, “law students… aptitude for verbal articulation increases, but they rarely stop to listen to others” was apt.

Are Gay Rights Rules Limiting Religious Freedom?

The headline at the New York Times web site is: Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion.

But the telling line in the story is: "Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion.  Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations)."

First off, only 3%!  But lets put that in context, that is still $140,100,000.  If you give everything you can, everything you have, then another comes along and gives ten times as much, that does not diminish what you have done.  What we don't know is how that 140 million compares to the rest of the churches budget.  That would be the truly telling number.

A Prayer by Oscar Romero

A few weeks ago, Professor Schiltz who I had for contracts, read the prayer below at the start of class.  That got me looking for more information about the person the prayer was attributed to.  Oscar Romero was assassinated in 1980 due to his support of the poor and down-trodden amidst the civil war in El Salvador.  His views were characterized as supporting communism, and the assassination was quite possibly carried out by U.S. trained para-military forces apposing communism.  One can read more about Romero at this site maintained by U.S. Catholic and at Wikipedia.

While reading about Romero I discovered that he may not have written the prayer that follows, but regardless of who wrote the prayer, I love the humility and frankness with which the author writes.

I think the prayer can be especially powerful for those in the midst of starting a new thing, or those looking to create systemic change in the way the world around them operates.

A Prayer by Oscar Romero

It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view.

The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is even beyond our vision.

Networked Blogs

A little test run here with networkedblogs.  I want to see if this blog post gets automatically posted to facebook. If you use networked blogs, how do you like it?

The Communion of Saints

Today I enjoyed an interesting dialog between Mark Osler and Susan Stabil on prayer and intercession from their respective Christian traditions. They were comparing and contrasting Stabil’s Catholic view on intercession and praying to the Saints, with Osler’s Protestant/Ana-Baptist view on intercession.  You can listen to the conversation here.

For Osler, the idea of asking anyone, much less a dead person or Saint to intercede on our behalf was, while not heretical, simply not necessary in light of Christ’s work on the cross and our ability to come freely before the throne of God. That said, Osler none-the-less enjoys learning about the Saints and the role-models they provide for us, sometimes in what not to do.

For Stabil on the other hand, asking others to intercede on her behalf was nothing new, and the fact that a person had passed on to the other side changed nothing, accept maybe that person’s free time and ability to intercede on our behalf, (that last part being said in jest, sort of.) Just as we might ask a trusted friend or family member to intercede for us on our behalf while we are together on earth, we can continue to ask our community, this great cloud of whiteness, Sainted or not, to intercede on our behalf even after they have passed on. Stabil said it is a bit like when you were a child and in trouble. You might ask your friend to go with you to talk to you parents, and in the same way, you and your grandmother might go and talk to Saint Peter, and together you might speak with Christ, asking him to intercede with God the father.


My initial question, which I think I framed rather poorly was, “how much does reality matter?” In other words, what happens when we die? Maybe what I should have asked was “how much does metaphysics matter?” In any case, the question rooted in my somewhat fundamentalist upbringing was this: after we die, can we know and understand what is going on down below, allowing us to intercede on our loved-ones behalf? Can the Saints really pray for us, or are their souls in some kind of soul sleep, awaiting the resurrection of the dead?

What did you learn in law school today Daddy?

Kids and law or hilarious.  I often ask my five-year-old Nicholas what he learned in school today.  So when he turned it around and asked what I learned in [law] school.  I had to think for a second.

"Suppose you have a sucker and I take it away.  Then mommy gives you a new sucker because I took yours.  Should I have to give your sucker back, since you already have a new sucker" I asked. (The collateral source rule)

"No," he says.

"Why not" I ask, going all socratic on him.

"Because that would be too much sugar." (What is wrong with this kid!)

"What if you get to save the second sucker for later?" I ask.

"Yes, then you have to give me back my sucker."

"Well that's what I learned in school today" I replied.

Finding Purpose

About a month ago I attended a lecture by Michael Schutt on the “drudgery of law school.”  He was discussing the endless reading, writing and fact checking and the mundaneness of it all, and how we can respond.  During the lecture he highlighted four issues: dualism, sloth, pride, and as mentioned, drudgery, that is, being frustrated and not enlivened by what we do.

Dualism is that habit we all have of separating our professional life from our spiritual life or values.  There is no separation between what we eat and how that impacts our life, and in the same way, there is no separation between what goes into our spiritual life (or not) and the telling results.  If we pursue professional goals that are at odds with what we say our ethical values are, there will be consequences, not just outwardly, but in our inner life as well.  That does not mean all lawyers should be doing public interest law, not at all.  Only that there has to be consistency between what we believe, whatever that is, and what we do.