We'd like to have a focused discussion of John Allen's
new book, "The Future Church."
As the book is organized according to 10 "Trends," we'll focus
on one trend per week. On the Monday of
the designated week, one of us will provide an opener, hopefully with some
thoughts on the implications for the Catholic legal theory project, and then to
the extent that it is helpful to keep the discussion focused, also serve as a
thread coordinator for that week.
Discussion from the previous thread could also continue, but this way
we'll be sure to cover the wide ground that Allen sets out. For MOJ readers who would like to read along and participate, here is our schedule with the coordinators:
Week of 1/18 - A World Church - Amy Uelmen & Rick Garnett
1/25 - Evangelical Catholicism - Rob Vischer
2/1 - Islam - Russ Powell
2/8 - The New Demography - Michael Scaperlanda
2/15 - Expanding Lay Roles - Lisa Schiltz
2/22 - The Biotech Revolution - Robert George
3/1 - Globalization - Kevin Lee
3/8 - Ecology – Bob Hockett
3/15 - Pentecostalism - Greg Sisk
3/22 - Multipolarism – Tom Berg
It was reported earlier this week that Augsburg Fortress, the publishing ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), has terminated its defined benefit pension plan. The plan is severely underfunded, meaning that plan participants will only receive a fraction of the benefits to which they are entitled under the plan.
ERISA regulates the pension plans of most private employers. Among other things, it imposes mimimum funding standards on defined benefit plans designed to prevent serious underfunding problems. ERISA also put in place an insurance system that guarantees some portion of plan benefits in the event a plan terminates with insufficient assets to pay all vested benefits that have accrued under the plan. Because ERISA contains an exemption for "church plans," the regulations and protections of ERISA don't apply to the Augsburg Fortress plan.
Although I confess that I have not ever given the church plan exemption a whole lot of thought, I think it is probably correct that such plans should be exempt from ERISA regulations. (Whether that conclusion is better grounded in Establishment Clause or Free Exercise concerns is something I'll leave to the First Amendment scholars.) But the exemption does contribute to some unfortunate consequences. Employees of entities such as Augsburg Fortress are in need of as much protection as employees of private employers and the exemption leaves such employees far worse off when a plan such as this one is terminated.
Mary Leary at Catholic Law School has posted an article based on an excellent presentation I heard her give at a symposium on the 20th anniversary of Mulieris Dignitatem: "Mulieris Dignitatem: Pornography and the Dignity of the Soul: An Exploration of Dignity in a Protected Speech Paradigm." The abstract:
This
article, part of a symposium celebrating the 20th anniversary of
Mulieris Dignitatem, reflects on Mulieris Dignitatem’s teachings, and
how they can inform the issue of pornography. Modern day pornography
has increased in both its quantity and severity of content. Mulieris
Dignitatem offers a pathway out of this reality with its focus on the
concept of dignity. The article reviews John Paul II’s emphasis on the
dignity of woman and applies it to the modern day issue of pornography.
The article suggests a paradigm shift from examining pornography solely
through a “speech and expression lens” to examining the issue through a
“dignity lens. In so doing, the article explores John Paul II’s
discussion of dignity of both men and women, as well as society as a
whole. It examines some parallels between this approach and the
previous civil rights approach of the feminist movement. Finally, the
article invokes John Paul II’s emphasis on vocation and proposes a
social movement targeting a paradigm shift to a dignity perspective
rather than relying on a legal movement.
More important than the legal solution (criminalization), Leary argues, is a change in the social norms governing pornography today in the U.S. She describes how the law "followed the dictates of the societal shift" in attitudes toward smoking, driving under the influence, and dangerous sexual practices. She argues for increased public education about findings of researchers who have identified online pornography as 'a hidden public health hazard'. She also argues for greater efforts to combat "the normalization of the sexualization of girls."
As a mother of a nine-year old girl who watches far too much Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, I say, AMEN, Mary!
One MOJ reader had this comment in response to Carissa Mulder's thoughts on the UK case that I posted last evening:
Carissa Mulder towards the end of her comments states that "The UK has
never recognized sharia law." and later she states: "I would be happy
if sharia law were the equivalent of courts of canon law."
I think the accuracy of her first statement depends on what she means
by "recognize" because the UK government has allowed sharia courts to
operate in limited circumstances and has approved sharia-compliant
financial institutions to be formed and operate within the UK.
Sharia courts, like the Jewish Beth Din courts, are treated as
arbitration tribunals under the UK Arbitration Act 1996. The parties
have to voluntarily consent to have the courts hear their case and
abide by its decision. In cases for change of status, like divorce,
they may adjudicate the religious case but the parties still must seek
a civil divorce in order for their marriage to be legally ended under
the laws of England and Wales. So in the case of divorce, sharia
courts and Jewish Beth Din courts are acting in ways that are somewhat
similar to the Office of the Tribunal of a particular Catholic diocese
which decides whether to issue declarations of nullity for Catholics
who wish their marriage to be annulled.
Continue reading
In December, Rick posted a copy of the letter from religious-liberty scholars analyzing potential conflicts between same-sex-marriage and religious liberty in New Jersey and proposing a statute accommodating religious objectors when SSM is recognized. Since MOJ has served as an online source for those wanting to read those letters for various states and cite them in articles, briefs, etc., and since the NJ-letter file is now blocked by a security firewall, I am reposting it here. Rick's original post explains the context.
There is a reasonably complete and updated collection of these letters for various states, at this post, which originated last August.
