Religion & Law

In her post this morning--which, as I've already emphasized, and Robby's false claim to the contrary notwithstanding in his post below, I did *not* conscript, but for which, I also want to emphasize, I am most grateful--Cathy made five informative points about Germain Grisez's work, under these headings:  problems in Grisez's basic philosophical method; problems with Grisez's natural law theory; fit with Catholic tradition; moves toward virtue theory; and problems with method of theological ethics.  Cathy invoked some conspicuously non-"liberal" sources in making her points--for example, Russell Hittinger, who holds the Warren Chair of Catholic Studies at the University of Tulsa and is the author of  A Critique of the New Natural Law Theory.  (A critique, that is, of the Grisez/Finnis/Boyle/George new natural law theory.)  Russ is also on the editorial board of First Things, a magazine with which Robby is quite familiar, and on the advisory board of the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture.  Moreover, Russ was elected, in 2001, to the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas in Rome. 

And MOJ's own Michael Scaperlanda posted today that Cathy's five points could serve as a useful point of departure for further discussion.

What was Robby's response?  An impatient (and angry?) dismissal of Cathy's points as "Professor Kaveny's ex cathedra pronouncements on Germain Grisez's thought."  Unintended irony?  Impressive response?