Religion & Law

Marc DeGirolami responds to my earlier post relating a Catholic attorney's concern that the Catholic legal thought project is too focused on theory:

The fact (at least for me it is a fact) is that "theory" is not a special kind of effete thinking reserved for pointy headed people.  Theory is thinking.  And many of the issues raised by your practicing correspondent are only adequately addressed by people prepared to engage deeply in theory (he mentions Professor Kaveny in particular, but while her excellent piece on the billable hour may be accessible, it is, surely, highly theoretical too).  When I was at Catholic University, Patrick Brennan gave a wonderful talk in which he emphasized that the primary light toward which the CST project must be oriented is "philosophy," by which I took him to mean not necessarily philosophy proper (though there is nothing wrong with that!), but precisely theory -- deep and sustained reflection on the many issues about which CST might have something interesting and illuminating to say.

 

It is also true that "theorizing" is not something that intelligent people can simply choose not to do; one is always theorizing, if one is an intelligent person, whether one calls it that or not, and whether one is conscious of it or not.  True, there are different kinds of inquiries suited to different kinds of minds, but one of the reasons for the famous "disjunction" between legal academics and legal practice is the failure to recognize the pervasiveness of theory -- its importance to ordinary, intelligent men and women.  And surely, that group includes many law students and practicing attorneys.