Here is a link to the complaint filed this morning by the University of Notre Dame, challenging the Administration's "preventive services" mandate. Here is an excerpt from the announcement by Fr. Jenkins, the University's president, to the Faculty and Staff:
. . . Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services. Many of our faculty, staff and students -- both Catholic and non-Catholic -- have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.
This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives. For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions. For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name. . . .
Here is the statement of John Garvey, the President of Catholic University.
In my view, these lawsuits -- which are the result of the Administration's overreach, and not of any effort by religious institutions or leaders to "pick a fight" -- are efforts to vindicate the country’s constitutional and traditional commitments to religious freedom and pluralism.
These latest lawsuits, like the many others that had already been filed, are asking the courts to enforce the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and to protect religious liberty and conscience from a regrettable and burdensome regulatory mandate. This mandate imposes a serious and unnecessary burden on many religious institutions’ commitments, witness, and mission. It purports to require many religious schools, health-care providers, and social-welfare agencies to compromise their institutional character and integrity. In a society that respects and values diversity, as our does, we should protect and accommodate our distinctively religious institutions, and welcome their contributions to the common good.
These lawsuits are not asking the courts to endorse the plaintiffs’ religious views, only to respect and accommodate them. Religious institutions are not seeking to control what their employees buy, use, or do in private; they are trying to avoid being conscripted by the government into acting in a way that would be inconsistent with their character, mission, and values. In a pluralistic society, people will often disagree about values and policies, and it will not always be possible to accommodate those who object in good faith to regulatory requirements. At the same time, a society like ours – with a Constitution and federal religious-freedom protections like ours – will regard it as often both wise and just to accommodate religious believers and institutions by exempting them from requirements that would force them to compromise their integrity. This is such a case. We Americans do not agree about what religious freedom means, but we have long agreed that it matters, and should be protected through law. True, there will sometimes be tension and conflict, and trade-offs and compromises. Given our deep-rooted commitment to religious freedom, though, our goal as a community should always be to strike the balance in a way that honors that commitment.
The sad pictures of destruction in areas surrounding the hometown of my mother, Bologna, are only somewhat softened by the welcome news that it appears relatively few people were killed or seriously injured by the earthquake.
But the images of destroyed churches and other ancient public edifices reminded me of Ruskin's verdict that architecture is the most political of the arts. So I went back in search of his elegant polemic (it is possible to be both) The Seven Lamps of Architecture -- my favorite of which is "The Lamp of Memory." Here's a bit:
Every human action gains in honour, in grace, in all true magnificence, by its regard to things that are to come. It is the far sight, the quiet and confident patience, that, above all other attributes, separate man from man, and near him to his Maker; and there is no action nor art, whose majesty we may not measure by this test. Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build for ever. Let it not be for present delight, nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labour and wrought substance of them, "See! this our fathers did for us." For, indeed, the greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, nor in its gold. Its glory is in its Age, and in that deep sense of voicefulness, of stern watching, of mysterious sympathy, nay, even of approval or condemnation, which we feel in walls that have long been washed by the passing waves of humanity. It is in their lasting witness against men, in their quiet contrast with the transitional character of all things, in the strength which, through the lapse of seasons and times, and the decline and birth of dynasties, and the changing of the face of the earth, and of the limits of the sea, maintains its sculptured shapeliness for a time insuperable, connects forgotten and following ages with each other, and half constitutes the identity, as it concentrates the sympathy, of nations: it is in that golden stain of time, that we are to look for the real light, and colour, and preciousness of architecture; and it is not until a building has assumed this character, till it has been entrusted with the fame, and hallowed by the deeds of men, till its walls have been witnesses of suffering, and its pillars rise out of the shadows of death, that its existence, more lasting as it is than that of the natural objects of the world around it, can be gifted with even so much as these possess, of language and of life.
The Philadelphia trial of Msgr. William Lynn and Fr. Brennan turned a corner last week. After 8 weeks of testimony, the prosecution rested its case. While the evidence cannot be recounted adequately in this post, the press summarized some important events and themes here and here.
This case has raised important questions about child protection, appropriate response, institutional climates, and the role of lawyers. As the press articles suggest, most predict that Msgr. Lynn's defense will not be to question whether certain events occurred. Rather, he is expected to continue to describe the situation as one in which he was attempting to take action, but his superiors were hindering his efforts. Fr. Brennan denies any wrongdoing.
Last week the trial judge dismissed one of two conspiracy charges against Lynn. Remaining are two counts of endangering the welfare of a child and one count of conspiracy. Brennan faces charges that he sexually assaulted a child. The defense presents it case this week. Jurors are expected to have it by Memorial Day.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Over the past several weeks, some of my friends and colleagues here at the Mirror of Justice and contributors on other weblogs have been addressing issues dealing with the matter of Georgetown University inviting HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to be the speaker at a commencement-related event. The Washington Post has chimed in [here] as has the President of Georgetown, Dr. Jack DeGoia [here]. With respect to the positions of both the Post and Dr. DeGoia, they get it wrong, not right as the Post claims, regarding the matters of “academic freedom” and whether the University did or did not honor Secretary Sebelius by inviting her as a speaker. Professor Patrick Deneen has done a careful analysis of these claims proffered by the newspaper and the University and has ably demonstrated why they are inadequate [here]. I do not intend to repeat Professor Deneen’s accurate explanation of the matter and evolving misfortune at Georgetown and other institutions that claim the moniker “Catholic”.
However, I want to use his critique and the defenses offered by the Post and the University to recall and revisit an important topic we often address here at the Mirror of Justice: that is, the reason for Catholic education (including legal education) and the nature of the Catholic institution of higher education.
During Eastertide, we recall the teaching of Jesus Christ in his farewell discourse that he is the vine and we are the branches. Our Lord builds upon this theme by reminding his disciples that the branches which do not bear fruit but wither are collected and burned. John 15:1-11. But before the withered branches are removed for incineration, they are pruned in a good-faith effort to revive them. This is the imagery which I think Archbishop Michael Miller had in mind when he spoke at Notre Dame in 2005 (and then later, Boston College in 2006) and used the image of “evangelical pruning” that necessitate positive institutional changes by an educational institution if it is to remain faithful to the institution’s Catholic mission and identity [here]. However, if the pruning is unable to remedy the problems, it is reasonable to conclude that the institution is not an asset but an obstacle to the Church’s mission of education where the faith and reason are complementary and essential partners.
Georgetown is my alma mater, and I have many fond memories of the college at which I matriculated almost fifty years ago. I had many fine Jesuit and lay teachers (amongst the latter, not all were Catholic but understood, respected, and celebrated the institution’s mission and identity as a Catholic and Jesuit center of learning) who helped me simultaneously cultivate my mind and soul. I don’t think I would have the same experience today if I were matriculating in the present day.
Why? Was the decision to change the soul of the institution intentional? Probably not. But change has happened through decisions that persons responsible for the nature and soul of Georgetown have made freely over the years. The evidence of the withering of the Catholic soul has grown during the passage of time. I cannot say if there is still time for Georgetown, and other schools pursuing the same path, to self-prune, but I pray for this. Being an optimist, I want to say there may well be a final opportunity, but the time is growing short, very short, for this to happen.
Almost twenty-two years have passed since Blessed John Paul II issued his apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae addressing many important matters concerning Catholic universities, their mission, and their identity. Some of the institutions which claim the modifier “Catholic” have taken the counsel of JPII to heart, but others have not. Georgetown is in the latter category, so it appears, judging from all the currently available evidence. Today I join the appeal of Professor Deneen and others acknowledging that much will be lost when this, the oldest Catholic university in the United States, takes that final step that severs itself from the Vine of Christ. As I said, there may still be time, and if there is, it is preciously little. The bonfire that may result is not one of vanity but of a soul. With the soul gone, the vanity will remain.
RJA sj
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The folks over at Catholic Moral Theology are kicking off a week-long series of posts on the same-sex-marriage question. Here is the first one. Stay tuned!
This morning, at the traditional prayer service organized by the Notre Dame Law School Class of 2012, the First Reading was from Micah 6:8:
You have been told, O mortal, what is good,
and what the LORD requires of you:
Only to do justice and to love goodness,
and to walk humbly with your God.
Nice. Congratulations to all the graduates!
Friday, May 18, 2012
Ann Pellegrini has a thoughtful post, at The Immanent Frame, called "Everson's Children." I don't agree with all of it, but it's well worth a read.
