This article explores the unity of law and theology in the 1983 Code of Canon Law [hereinafter CIC-1983]. The unity has remained critical since canon law emerged in the ancient Church. From the origins of the primitive Christian communities through the patristic era, the Church manifested a tension between charism and office, spirit and law. The medieval canonists achieved a great synthesis of the reason of law and faith of theology. The unified theory helped to form the basis of the Western legal tradition. The Reformation focus on sola fide (faith alone) tended to sever the unity. With the Enlightenment, reason was declared independent from the unproven dogma of faith. Modern Western legal theory developed in accord with Enlightenment thought. As a result of canon law's function in the life of the Church, the continuing issue of the unity has produced two interrelated principles. Theology without law leaves the ecclesiastical community bereft of an ordered life. Law without theological meaning surrenders its moral persuasiveness and deteriorates into rigid legalism.

Vatican II required a new universal law for the Church that avoided the pitfalls of both antinomianism and legalism. The Preparatory Commission for the CIC-1983 described canon law as a “sacred symbol.” When he promulgated the new Code, His Holiness John Paul II termed the legislation “the final document of Vatican II.” Affirming the unity of law and theology, the Supreme Legislator has drawn attention to the concept of “theological anthropology.” The phrase signifies the endeavor to uncover the fundamental elements of what it means to be human. In exploring the unity of law and theology, this article focuses on the relationship between canon law and theological anthropology. While obviously not intended as a repudiation of mainstream legal theory, the article also suggests that the unity may offer comparative insight to the secularity of the modern project.

On September 11, 2001, did American Muslims become America's newest race? This essay offers preliminary observations regarding that question.

Using the word “race” in America is like waving a red flag before a bull. You are likely to get a spirited response. In the context of a national calamity like the September 11, 2001 tragedy, discussing race becomes an even more delicate venture. Accordingly, to reduce prospects of confusion later, this essay begins by briefly addressing some initial concerns about even using the term “race.” The essay acknowledges that race is a complex, multilayered phenomenon. In these circumstances, do not expect these comments to provide definitive insights into the nature of “race.” Rather, because racial worldviews are so pervasive, the essay limits itself to merely attempting to give a sense of how the term “race” is used here.

After briefly dealing with some concerns about race, the essay outlines evidence that, based on what at best can be called racial stereotypes, American Muslims have been singled out for particularly egregious treatment following the September 11 tragedy. For illustrative purposes, the essay draws comparisons between the response of public officials to the September 11 and Oklahoma City bombing catastrophes. The essay then puts these matters in a slightly broader historical perspective by considering several cases which the United States Supreme Court decided in the 1930s and 1940s before and after another calamitous day in American history: December 7, 1941, when the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor. To round out the historical outline, two contrasting cases involving the jurisdiction of military commissions to try American civilians are briefly evaluated.

The “remarkable phenomenon” called Scientology, and Scientologists in their capacity as such, have long complained of persecution by the German state. Their case has been put to various governmental bodies in the United States and has even resulted in attempts to have the United States Congress

The matter has also been brought to the attention of the State Department. Exaggerations, such as comparisons between the current situation of Scientologists and that of the Jews in Nazi Germany, even if restricted to the situation of the Jews before the commencement of the Holocaust, do nothing to persuade one of the seriousness with which Scientology's accusations are made. Nevertheless, some lesser form of persecution or perhaps rather discrimination might lie at the bottom of these complaints.

There is, however, a functioning legal system in Germany enforcing a Bill of Rights in the German constitution, the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). That legal system might be expected to be alert to such forms of discrimination, unless of course it too is part of some grand conspiracy against Scientology. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the legal system in Germany is treating Scientology and Scientologists fairly by considering the reported cases on these topics in Germany.