Once again, the Rev. Barry Lynn has taken the opportunity to criticize the Catholic Church by taking prominent occasion to highlight Bishop Thomas Tobin’s recent statements in the diocesan newspaper published by his diocese, Providence. Lynn’s organization, Americans for Separation of Church and State, has made a request to the IRS to investigate the diocese as a result of Bishop Tobin’s remarks published in the Catholic journal. [Article HERE] Quoting from the AP article which appears in the major newspaper of Bishop Tobin’s diocese, the Providence Journal:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a news release yesterday, said it took the action because “federal tax law forbids non-profits to use organizational resources to support or oppose candidates for public office.” The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the group’s executive director, said in the letter that Tobin, “appears to have violated federal tax law by attacking Giuliani.” Tobin made his comments in a piece in the Rhode Island Catholic, questioning Giuliani’s position that abortion is wrong, but that government should not impede a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion. “If the bishop wants to join the political fray, he should do so as an individual without dragging along his tax-exempt diocese,” Lynn said in the news release. “A church is not a political action committee, and it should not act like one.”
I have previously used the analogy of trains headed on a same-track train in a head-on collision to depict contemporary challenges to the proper exercise of religious liberty. Bishop Tobin has acted properly in spite of Rev. Lynn’s commentary and characterization. Since it appears that the trains are once again running toward one another, let us pray for Bishop Tobin, his courage, and his fidelity to his teaching and pastoral office.RJA sj
The bishops of Massachusetts quickly issued a statement [HERE] in response to the Massachusetts legislature's denial of the referendum on the definition of marriage. Will more action follow? In the meantime, we may reflect on the frank words of the bishops:
In the Commonwealth, our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a right to vote on a constitutional amendment. However, the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues. Their ideological positions undermine the common good. Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families and society... The question for those elected officials who opposed allowing the marriage amendment to be voted on by the people is: do we live in a country where people are free to vote their conscience or are we controlled by what is viewed as politically correct and by powerful special interest groups?
The Massachusetts legislature has just voted to prohibit the citizens of Massachusetts from a referendum on the Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Boston Globe’s characterization of the proposed amendment is flawed, but the Globe reports other relevant issues concerning today's legislative activities. [HERE] As a consequence of this vote by the legislature, the citizens will not be able to have the 2008 referendum on the meaning of marriage. It will be interesting to see what the citizen’s response will be. It will also be interesting to see how the four bishops in Massachusetts respond.RJA sj
Some years ago, Rep. Tip O’Neill suggested that all politics are local. This observation came from a man who was not only a powerful national legislator but also a leader of Congress and Speaker of the House of Representatives. Over the past several weeks several MOJ contributors have discussed a number of issues that involve the important question of church/state relations on the national front. Some of the issues discussed in these postings have addressed abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and marriage. One catalyst for these discussions has been the nationally televised debates of Democratic and Republican candidates for the Presidency.
But tomorrow, Thursday, June 14, politics of great importance will take place on a local level. The General Court of Massachusetts (the state legislature) is scheduled to take up the important question of the state constitutional convention concerning the amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would define marriage as the union between one many and one woman. [HERE] The four Catholic bishops of Massachusetts have spoken on this issue a number of times including on June 12. [HERE] However, a number of prominent members of the legislature who are either Catholic or represent areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with large Catholic majorities have taken the approach that religious belief cannot trump public duty. An example of their position is reported [HERE].
I am inclined to think that many legislators will look for ways to avoid the vote tomorrow so as to postpone this important matter for another day. But should the vote proceed and thereby allow the issue to go to a popular referendum, the citizens of Massachusetts will most likely decide the matter. But, if the legislature deems the proposed amendment “discriminatory” and refuses the public referendum, the bishops of Massachusetts, who have been exercising their pastoral and teaching duties on this issue, will have another duty to perform: what must they do about the legislators who claim membership in the Church but defy its teachings?
At this late hour there is one thing that those of us who are not Massachusetts legislators (and lobbyists) can do: we can once again pray for courage and wisdom in our bishops as they exercise their pastoral and teaching office. Let us also pray for the fidelity of our Catholic legislators for whom matters of faith may or may not be convenient, depending on the political issue that rests before them. It is interesting that some Catholic legislators can profess strong adherence to the faith when the issues in a debate involve education, poverty, or immigration; however, it is equally interesting when they assert that their faith cannot “interfere” with their public duties when abortion “rights,” the public funding of embryonic stem cell research, or the definition of marriage is at stake. RJA sj
Larry Solum and Colin Farrelly have put together a volume of essays titled Virtue Jurisprudence. Here is the description:
This book is the first authoritative text on virtue jurisprudence - the belief that the final end of law is not to maximize preference satisfaction or protect certain rights and privileges, but to promote human flourishing. Scholars of law, philosophy and politics illustrate here the value of the virtue ethics tradition to modern legal theory.
In response to Michael's post: we've discussed income inequality before, here and here for example. My brief reaction is that Catholic thought regards absolute deprivation of the poor as the most serious problem, followed by a lack of economic mobility, and income inequality in itself as only third in the list of problems. But large or increasing income inequality is a matter of some concern in itself for a few reasons that I tried to argue in the first link above: (1) it can strain the bonds of solidarity (as people of wildly different incomes lead lives incomprehensible to each other); (2) it prima facie makes economic mobility more difficult (as the spread from one level to the next higher becomes greater); (3) and it can hurt the poor through what economist Robert Frank has called "expenditure cascades" (in which high expenditures by the wealthy raise the bar for what modest-income people must pay -- and not through mere envy, but because those expenditures become part of society's expectations).
It's hard to respond to RIck's post because the WSJ article is only available to paying subscribers.
Most bishops have resisted calls to excommunicate [abortion-rights-supporting] politicians or even to impose lesser sanctions, including denying them Communion. The very idea of these actions appalls most liberals, both inside and outside the Church. They consider ecclesiastical punishment undemocratic, an attack on personal conscience and a violation of the separation of church and state. "I believe the church has a role in guiding parishioners and people in public life, but I don't believe the Church should be using the sacrament of Communion as a political weapon," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.), a pro-choice Catholic, recently told the Connecticut Post.
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) is leading the charge to undo the so-called "Mexico City policy," which prevents taxpayer funds from going to groups that do abortions or lobby other nations to overturn their anti-abortion laws.
And, pro-abortion-rights representatives in Congress, including Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Maloney (D-NY) have introduced legislation that would require objecting pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill, or face very heavy fines.
Michael P. blogged, the other day, about the Times story on income inequality. He asked if Catholic Legal Theory has anything to say about income inequality. I hope the answer is "yes." The harder question (for me), though, is: What is that something? And, relatedly, of what relevance are the facts discussed in this piece, from the Wall Street Journal, in a piece called "The Poor Get Richer"?
I am happy to announce the agenda for the 5th Annual Symposium at CST and the Law at Villanova on 9.21.07. Info for those wishing to attend will be distributed shortly.
Villanova University School of Law and the Journal of Catholic Social Thought
CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING ON
THE MARKET, THE STATE AND THE LAW
Fifth Annual Symposium on Catholic Social Teaching and the Law
September 21, 2007
PANEL IUnderstanding Catholic Social Teaching on the Market
9:00 A.M.
Presenters
Daniel K. Finn
Ten Libertarian Heresies that Tempt Neo-Conservative Catholics to Stray from Catholic Social Thought
Robert F. Pecorella
Making Catholic Values “Street” Legal: Macroeconomic Policies and the Regulation of Markets in the
United States
Commentators
Robert T. Miller
Eduardo MoisesPenalver
Mark A. Sargent
BREAK
11:00 A.M.
PANEL IICatholic Social Teaching inAction
11:15 A.M.
Monsignor John Ryan and Economic Justice for All
Presenters
Zachary R. Calo
“True Economic Liberalism”: John A. Ryan and the Development of American Catholic Social Thought, 1920-1940
Patrick Flanagan, C.M.
Reconciling the American Dream and God’s Dream in Economic Justice For All
LUNCHEON AND KEYNOTE ADDRESS
12:15 P.M.
David Hollenbach, S.J.
Economic Justice For AllTwenty Years Later
PANEL IIIThe Corporation: Sacred or Profane? Sacred and Profane?
1:30 P.M.
Presenters
Mark A. Sargent
The Divergence of the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement and Catholic Social Thought
Robert K. Vischer
Corporate Identity and Moral Pluralism
Susan J. Stabile
Workers In the Vineyard: Catholic Social Thought and the Workplace
