Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
Papist
Defines Papal Bull
I note the headline in
"Today's
Papers" (March 17), by Scott Shuger: "Papal Bull." Clearly, this refers to
the important Vatican document "We Remember," a reflection on the Shoah. The
document expresses repentance for actions of Catholics during the Shoah. Of
course, this document is historic and groundbreaking, but it is not a bull.
I quote
from The Church Visible: The Ceremonial Life and Protocol of the Roman
Catholic Church , by James-Charles Noonan Jr., Page 395:
Apostolic bull: A document
that derives its name from the Latin bulla , meaning "leaden seal," which
is used to imprint the reigning pope's insignia, or seal, on the document. The
most solemn of the papal documents, the bull creates a prelate a cardinal
(although the biglietto announces it). Bishops are officially appointed
by the papal bull, as are other high-ranking officials. It is also the document
that announces beatifications and canonizations.
(I recommend this book for
Slate
's reference library--it has all manner of interesting facts
about the Catholic Church and is quite authoritative.)
I know
that many people commonly use the term papal bull to describe almost any
document coming from the Holy See, but you are
Slate
, and thus
seek the highest standards. Today's Papers is a helpful service--I'm just
trying to make it more helpful.
-- The Rev. Vincent J.
Rigdon, J.C.L. Director, Office of the MissionsArchdiocese of Washington
Lawyer
Says Lawyer Lied About Lying Lawyers
David Feige's comments about
"Lying Lawyers" were
not far off target--if the target was set up in New York state, in about 1975.
But since he appears to be talking about lawyers functioning in the United
States generally, and he appears to be talking about 1997 and 1998, he's not
even close.
As many of your readers may
know--but Lawyer Feige apparently does not--the American Bar Association
adopted a new code in 1983, known as the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
The model rules have been adopted (usually with amendments) in more than 40
U.S. jurisdictions (not including New York). The model rules explicitly
reject virtually everything Feige said in his "Gist" piece.
I'm the
co-author of one the leading treatises on legal ethics--and it's updated
annually. But don't take my word for it. Ask any current teacher of legal
ethics in any law school in the United States ( including a law school in
New York).
-- W. William
Hodes Professor of lawIndiana University School of LawIndianapolis
David
Feige replies: The point of my piece was not to examine the minor
differences between the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the
Model Code of Professional Responsibility --a subject that I am sure
Professor Hodes has examined in a more lengthy tome--but rather to discuss the
application of the code (or rules) in the real world.
It is
surprising to me that someone as well known and erudite as Hodes can fail to
grasp the simple thesis of my piece--that lawyers apply their analytical skills
to the rules of professional responsibility much as they do to any other text.
That people want zealous advocates to defend their interests, and as a
consequence, zealousness tends to gain the upper hand in the battle between
aggressive advocacy and restrained, dignified legal conduct. Lawyers will
interpret the rules to maximize their ability to do what they believe is in the
best interests of their clients, and this is made easier by the porous
construction of both the Rules and the Code . Whether this is a
good thing is a subject worth discussing; whether it happens is obvious. And
not just in the South Bronx, where I practice, but in every jurisdiction from
municipal court to federal court, in Code states and Rule states
alike.
Weisberg
Watcher
I'm going to break with
tradition and write about something I've enjoyed recently about
Slate
rather than something about which I have ants in the pants.
Throughout the year and a half that I've been reading his column in
Slate
, the tone of Jacob Weisberg's columns has consistently been
somewhat cynical and worldly about the political process he covers. In recent
columns, however, I have greatly enjoyed seeing his intelligent skepticism
pointed as much toward the media as toward the politicians. What's most
noticeable about his columns on the Clinton scandal is that his viewpoint is
unique among all those emanating from Washington. It's not a James
Carville-style partisan critique (one could hardly peg Weisberg as a Clinton
fan), and it's not a Molly Ivins-style "quit drooling over inconsequential sex"
critique. It's a critique that takes on the cultural attitude and assumptions
of the press and how those assumptions slant their journalism, and it's
refreshing.
The most
recent column ("Betty and Monica") makes a much-needed point about the
subtly condescending nature of traditional journalism's attitude toward
successful blacks (a column in the future might explore the press' similar
attitude toward the Southern population of the country). From the article about
the Georgetown establishment's distaste for the Clintons through the
"Dispatch"
entries and the column about why the press feels the need to take
Clinton down, I have greatly enjoyed Weisberg's writings. More
importantly--and much rarer--I have learned a lot. Keep up the good work.
-- Chris
Colon Seattle
I'm King
of the 14-Year-Old Imagination!
David
Plotz does a lovely, lovely job on the absolutely deserving Joe Eszterhas
("Assessment"). I've followed Eszterhas' leaden touch since
F.I.S.T. , and for my diligence, got written into Burn Hollywood
Burn , complete with an invitation to play "myself," Sheila Benson. When
calm legal heads of my acquaintance advised him that neither I nor my name were
available, he changed it, I see, to "Sheila Maslin." Still and all, I have to
say that the title of king of the 14-year-old imagination still unequivocally
rests with James Cameron, and Monday night be damned.
-- Sheila Benson
Address
your e-mail to the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
