Overall, I think, a fine post by MIchael Sean Winters on Notre Dame's suit. There's some inflammatory language ("Sebelius and her fellow travelers") in a post that condemns inflammatory debate, but overall it seems to me incisive, and hard-hitting in the right places and manner. Money quote:
The central objection Notre Dame puts forward is that the Administration employs an unconstitutional standard in deciding what kinds of religious organizations are exempt from the new mandate and what kinds are not. This has been the central objection of many of us since the President’s January announcement, especially those of us who tend to lean to the left and care deeply about the Church’s social justice ministries. We reject – how can we not? – the distinction between a house of worship, which is exempt, and a religious charity, hospital or university, which are not exempt because, as Catholics, we believe that caring for the poor, healing the afflicted, and pursuing faith and reason together, are as essential to our Catholic identity as is our Sunday worship.
The Notre Dame complaint and Fr. Jenkins's letter explain cogently why, even assuming the administration's good faith in its claim to be seeking further accommodation, Notre Dame could not wait until it all might get sorted out. As is true in many cases, I think, the language of his message packs extra punch (more than most interventions on both sides of this debate) because it is measured, non-demonizing, and simply lays out the steps in the university's reasoning:
Although I do not question the good intentions and sincerity of all involved in [the further-accommodation] discussions, progress has not been encouraging and an announcement seeking comments on how to structure any accommodation (HHS Advanced Notification of Proposed Rule Making on preventative services policy, March 16, 2012) provides little in the way of a specific, substantive proposal or a definite timeline for resolution. . . . We will continue in earnest our discussions with Administration officials in an effort to find a resolution, but, after much deliberation, we have concluded that we have no option but to appeal to the courts regarding the fundamental issue of religious freedom.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Michael Gerson writes on millennials in general shifting toward acceptance of same-sex marriage; Christianity Today summarizes the shifts among young evangelicals. I agree with what I take to be Gerson's overall message (albeit one he appropriately qualifies and hedges): this trend is likely to continue rather than reverse. Part of the shift on gay marriage may be due to a decline in religious commitment among millennials compared with people of the same age in years past (although the causation could run the other way too: Gerson cites a study suggesting that millennials may be leaving religion in part because they perceive it as "anti-gay"). But even significant conversions to traditionalist/conservative Christianity don't seem likely to stop the trend, given the ongoing changes in the attitudes of young evangelicals that CT reports.
I know that some others on the blog think that traditionalist Christians must succeed in stopping same-sex marriage altogether--and must elevate that strategy over appeals to pluralism to protect their own religious-liberty rights--because once SSM is established, appeals to pluralism and religious liberty will be hopeless. But Gerson thinks, and I agree, that conservatives will have to shift toward the pluralism/religious-liberty emphasis:
And the generational shift will inevitably influence the fights conservatives choose to make. Even a significant portion of millennials who regard homosexuality as immoral support gay marriage out of a commitment to pluralism. And arguments in favor of pluralism have a tremendous advantage in America. In much of the country, social conservatives may need to choose a more defensible political line — the protection of individual and institutional conscience rights for those who disagree with gay marriage. It is also a commitment of genuine pluralism to allow those with differing moral beliefs to associate in institutions that reflect their convictions.
As a member of the board of Democrats for Life of America, I encourage interested readers to sign this petition. It calls on the party to change its platform language to express greater openness to pro-life positions and voters. As the accompanying DFLA press release notes, former President Carter recently made an exhortation along similar lines.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The USCCB has released the text of several letters to various congressional committees criticizing proposed budget cuts in aid for the poor. To quote from one of the letters: although there is a need to cut the deficit,
Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria. We join other Christian leaders in insisting "a circle of protection" be drawn around essential programs that serve poor and vulnerable people. I respectfully urge that the committee reject any efforts to reduce funds or restructure programs in ways that harm struggling families and people living in poverty.
Michael Sean Winters:
Some on the left have been highly critical of the USCCB lately, charging them with serving as tools of the GOP because of their embrace of the cause of religious liberty. I hope that all liberal Catholics will congratulate the bishops on these magnificent letters and urge them to continue to fight for the poor and the vulnerable in our society. The poor have no K Street lobbyists to make their case in the halls of Congress. . . . But, week-in and week-out, year-in and year-out, the USCCB has been fighting for programs that assist the poor and vulnerable, serving as the voice of the voiceless.
