Mirror of Justice

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The bishops on health-care proposals and abortion

Following up on Richard's and Michael P.'s recent posts on the current health-care debate: Here is a piece about Cardinal Rigali's recent letter to the members of the relevant House committee. He says, among other things:

In this particular letter I am writing specifically about our fundamental requirement that health care legislation respect human life and rights of conscience. Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an “abortion rights” agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding. In this sense we urge you to make this legislation “abortion neutral” by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.. . .

As long-time supporters of genuine health care reform, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.

Farr on the Administration and religious liberty abroad

By Rick Garnett

Thomas Farr is a veteran diplomat and a crucial voice in the struggle for religious liberty, here and abroad. (Read his book!) Courtesy of the American Principles Project, here (and here) are some of his thoughts on the Administration's plans and policies regarding religious freedom around the world. He emphasizes, among other things, that "the United States should move its policy of advancing international religious freedom into the mainstream. It is not a 'nice to have' humanitarian issue to be shoved aside when more 'strategic' imperatives (the environment and trade) loom. Religious liberty is intimately connected to all human affairs, including the defeat of those who, in the President's well-crafted words, 'would murder innocents.' It should be treated as such."

Monday, August 3, 2009

Berlusconi and the Italian Episcopacy

By Michael Perry

MOJ friend Pasquale Annicchino thought that some MOJ readers would be interested in the piece, from the Irish Times: Timid Church remains largely silent on Bersluconi's adventures (here). Pasquale said that the piece was "widely debated today in Italy."

That lovable, zany wedding party dance

By Rob Vischer

I did not intend to stop blogging while teaching in Rome, but the combination of teaching a partially new course, finishing my book edits, and (most significantly) keeping three children from getting run over by speeding scooters meant that something had to give, and that something was blogging. Now I'm at our annual Bible conference at Lake Okoboji in Iowa, so I have a little more free time. To avoid pulling any muscles, I'll ease back into this blogging thing by grasping some low-hanging fruit: namely, the burning-up-the-internet-phenomenon of the "dancing wedding party" video. In case you haven't seen it (and if you haven't seen it, you're only of only 17 people who haven't), here it is.

I got a kick out of it the first time I saw it, but then when I read interviews with various clergy members either applauding the creativity or lamenting the loss of ritual and solemnity, I saw the bigger picture. In the end, I agree with David Goodman's take in Slate. Here's his conclusion:

And so, though I am a writer and half-Jewish, I will be saying traditional vows in an Episcopal church, the very same in which my fiancée’s parents were married. We don’t buy into the idea of the wedding day as the truest expression of our love. It’s more of a rite of passage, and we don’t think rites work when you whip them up on your own, or buy them off the YouTube rack.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

"A Catholic Framework for Evaluating Health Reform"

By Michael Perry

See Cathy Kaveny's post, today, at dotCommonweal; see especially the material at the links Cathy provides (here).

Is there a human right to (basic) health care?

What is the magisterium's position on that issue?

If there is such a human right, the question is not whether but how government should protect the right, yes?

On that question, and as a general matter--understanding that it is always perilous to generalize--do Republicans and Democrats give different answers?

Does the (general) Republican answer entail that Medicare was a mistake? (When Medicare was being debated in Congress, the general Republican take was that Medicare is "socialized" medicine.) If so, does that say something about the credibility of the Republican answer?

(Analogy: If a theory of constitutional interpretation and proper judicial role entailed that Brown v. Board of Education and /or Loving v. Virginia were illegitimate constitutional decisions, would that tell us something about the credibility of that theory of constitutional interpretation and proper judicial role?)

ARCHIVE: Memos/Letters on Religious Liberty and Same-Sex Marriage

By Thomas Berg

Over the last months, there have been MOJ posts about the efforts of an assortment of religious-liberty scholars --including MOJers Berg, Garnett, and Perry -- proposing strong religious-liberty protections for conscientious objectors in states where same-sex marriage has been or may be legally recognized.

Based on comments from readers and others, I thought it would be worthwhile to collect in one post links to the various memo/letters that the scholars have written on the religious-liberty effects of same-sex marriage in the respective states. For each state, there is a Letter 1 -- a longer one with a full set of arguments by one group of scholars, including Garnett and Berg -- and a Letter 2 -- a shorter one by another group, led by Doug Laycock and including Michael Perry [UPDATE 1/2013: and including Tom Berg], all of whom support same-sex marriage but also support strong religious-objector provisions.

Hawaii (special session fall 2013): Group 1 Letter here (Oct. 17); Group 2 Letters here, here; Group 1 legislative testimony here (Oct. 28); Group 2 testimony in HI Senate (Oct. 27), House (Oct. 30)

Minnesota: Group 1 Letter here (May 2, 2013); Group 2 Letters to Democrats, to Republicans (May 3, 2013)

Rhode Island: Letter 1 (Feb. 4, 2013)

Illinois: Letter 1 here (Jan. 4, 2013); Group-2 Letters here, here (Mar. 12, 2013)

Washington state: Letter 1 and Letter 1 follow-up ; Letter 2 (all added 2-7-2012)

Maryland: Letter 1 (added 2-7-2012)

New York (2011 round): here is Letter 1 (added 5-18-2011)

New Jersey: here is Letter 1 (added 1-7-2010)

Iowa: Letter 1 and Letter 2

New York (2009 round): Letter 1 and Letter 2

Maine: Letter 1 and Letter 2

Our letters and our proposed statutory language have been revised since we wrote memo letters earlier concerning New Hampshire and Connecticut. (UPDATE 5-18-2011, 1-7-2010: they've been revised a couple of times, most recently for New York.) Because the legal developments have often happened fairly quickly, the most recent letters, reflecting our revisions, should be taken as constituting our proposals and arguments. But if you want to look at earlier letters, you can find links to the New Hampshire letters here and the Connecticut letters here.

Tom B.