Thursday, March 21, 2013
Pope Francis's (flawed) NCAA picks
Who has a "Pope Francis Problem"? Not only Republicans . . .
Michael Perry posted my friend Charlie Camosy's recent op-ed suggesting that "Republicans have a Pope Francis Problem." Indeed, they do (along with several other problems!). But, of course, so do the Democrats, and so do most of us. The Pope -- like his predecessors, and like the Church, and like Christ -- proposes an understanding of the human person and of human community that does not map neatly onto or cohere with any major camp in American politics.
Many Catholics who lean to the left politically tell a story in which "the Democrats are so close to being Catholic -- after all, unlike the Republicans, they care about the poor, and the environment, and equality, and are communitarian rather than individualistic -- if only they would moderate their stance on abortion", but this story strikes me more as wishful thinking than accurate description. It is not plausible, even if it is comforting for some, to regard the Democratic Party as a force for human dignity, the common good, and solidarity (in Charlie's words, for "social justice and nonviolence").
To say this, obviously, is not to say that the Republican Party is such a force. I'm pretty sure Charlie and I agree that, in many respects and on a number of issues, the policies promoted by the GOP are not, all things considered, thoughtful applications of Catholic Social Doctrine. But if the Republicans have a "Pope Francis Problem", then the Democrats -- the party of "no" on school choice and education reform, the party of Planned Parenthood, the party of irresponsible borrowing and spending, and the party that is stingily statist when it comes to religious freedom -- do, too.
More than a little bit of the post-(papal) election commentary I've read has included almost-gleeful assertions that Pope Francis is making "conservatives" nervous or mad, as if the fact that a Pope's election irritates one's political opponents is a, or the, reason to like that Pope. But, putting aside a few nutty commenters on traditionalist blogs, I've heard from "conservatives" nothing but enthusiastic words of thanksgiving and welcome regarding Pope Francis - as it should be. He seems (like his predecessors) wonderful, a real gift. Is this because the Pope -- or, for that matter, the Gospel -- doesn't challenge many American "conservatives'" political premises and positions? Of course not! But it would involve not hearing the Pope very well for American "liberals" to imagine that his words about (for example) "protecting" creation constitutes endorsement of the Democratic platform (or even of that platform-minus-abortion-rights).
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Murray, "The Elephant in Hosanna-Tabor"
My former student, Brian Murray, has recently published an insightful paper on the Hosanna-Tabor case, "The Elephant in Hosanna-Tabor" (link) which explores the question -- which Hosanna-Tabor did not have to answer definitively -- of how to define, or identify, "religious" institutions. Check it out.
A powerful thought
This quote, from the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean (2007), appears at the front of George Weigel's new book, Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century Church (which I recently read and enjoyed very much):
The Church is called to a deep and profound rethinking of its mission. . . . It
cannot retreat in response to those who see only confusion, dangers, and
threats. . . . What is required is confirming, renewing, and revitalizing the newness of the Gospel . . . out of a personal and community encounter with Jesus Christ that raises up disciples and missionaries. . . .
A Catholic faith reduced to mere baggage, to a collection of rules and
prohibitions, to fragmented devotional practices, to selective and partial
adherence to the truths of faith, to occasional participation in some
sacraments, to the repetition of doctrinal principles, to bland or nervous
moralizing, that does not convert the life of the baptized would not withstand
the trials of time. . . . We must all start again from Christ, recognizing [with
Pope Benedict XVI] that “being Christian is . . . the encounter with an event, a
person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.”
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Garnett at U. Toledo: "Religious Freedom in America"
Thanks to my friend Prof. Lee Strang, I'll be giving the Stranahan Lecture at the University of Toledo School of Law next week (Tuesday, March 26, at noon). You can read more about the event here. If you are nearby, please come and cheer wildly.
Helfand: "What is a 'Church'"?"
For those of us -- and that should be all of us! -- who are interested in the religious-freedom-under-law issue, this new paper by Michael Helfand should be of interest. It's called "What is a 'Church'? Implied Consent and the Contraception Mandate." Here is the abstract:
This Article considers the “religious employer” exception to the “contraception mandate” – that is, the “preventative care” requirements announced by Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This exception has triggered significant litigation with a variety of employers claiming that they have been excluding from the “religious employer” classification in violation of both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In considering these claims, this Article applies an “implied consent” framework to these cases, which grounds the authority of religious institutions in the presumed consent of their members. On such an account, consent can be assumed so long as members understood the unique religious objectives of the institution when they joined, thereby implicitly authorizing the institution to make rules related to accomplishing these uniquely religious objectives. Building on this implied consent framework, this Article argues that the First Amendment should protect institutions from the requirements of the contraception mandate so long as these institutions were both organized around a core religious mission and where that religious mission was open and obvious to employees. In such circumstances, courts should presume that employees recognized the unique religious objectives of their employer and thereby implicitly authorized their employer to make rules related to achieving these religious goals.
Important religious-freedom hearing next week
Next week, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is holding a public hearing on questions arising at the intersection of religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. Read more here. (And, note that comments for the Commission may be submitted and are welcome.)
This is, in my view -- as I discuss in this book chapter -- an important set of questions. A number of excellent religious-freedom scholars, familiar I'm sure to MOJ readers, will be presenting, including John Inazu, Michael Helfand, and our own Marc DeGirolami.
Rienzi: "God and the Profits"
Over at Public Discourse, Prof. Mark Rienzi has posted a short essay, "God and the Profits: Religious Liberty for Money-Makers," that is based on his new article by the same name. Here is the abstract:
Is there a religious way to pump gas, sell groceries, or advertise for a craft store?
Litigation over the HHS contraceptive mandate has raised the question
whether a for-profit business and its owner can engage in religious exercise
under federal law. The federal government has argued, and some courts have
found, that the activities of a profit-making business are ineligible for
religious freedom protection.
This article offers a comprehensive look at the relationship between profit-making and
religious liberty, arguing that the act of earning money does not preclude profit-making businesses and their owners from engaging in protected religious exercise.
Many religions impose, and at least some businesses follow, religious
requirements for the conduct of profit-making businesses. Thus businesses can be
observed to engage in actions that are obviously motivated by religious beliefs:
from preparing food according to ancient Jewish religious laws, to seeking out
loans that comply with Islamic legal requirements, to encouraging people to
“know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.” These actions easily qualify as exercises of religion.
It is widely accepted that religious freedom laws protect non-profit organizations. The argument for
denying religious freedom in the for-profit context rests on a claimed categorical distinction between for-profit and non-profit entities. Yet a broad examination of how the law treats these
entities in various contexts severely undermines the claimed categorical
distinction. Viewed in this broader context, it is clear that denying religious
liberty rights for profit-makers would actually require singling out religion
for disfavored treatment in ways forbidden by the Free Exercise Clause and federal law.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Viva Francisco!
I was driving on I-80 when a confused radio talker switched her verdict on the smoke from "gray" to "white!", and was pulling into Economy Parking at O'Hare when we learned that "habemus papam," What an exciting, happy, important day! Let the chatterers blather about this or that "faction" or "stalking horse", or about whether or not "Jesuit" and "simple" and "Francis" translate into "acceptable to the New York Times or compatible with American commentators' understandings of the 'liberal' policies towards which the Church is supposed to swerve," etc. Clearly, God has given us a humble, and faithful, pastor-priest -- a friend of Jesus, like John Paul II and Benedict XVI -- and there is every reason to hope that he can and will (re-)evangelize the world, inspire the Americas, and -- like St. Francis -- "rebuild [Christ's] Church." Maybe, just maybe, a pundit or two -- heck, maybe millions of people! -- will see, in his example, that there is no conflict between kissing the feet of an AIDS victim and criticizing hypocrites, on the one hand, and joyful, confident orthodoxy on the other. (What is humble service to the poor but "orthopraxis," after all?)
Lots of people will read into Pope Francis's election -- his nationality, his name, his religious order, his bus-riding -- lots of things. So, why shouldn't I? The Holy Spirit, in guiding the conclave to an Argentinian, is affirming the basic -- let's say the intrinsic! -- goodness of big chunks of grilled red meat with big glasses of bold red wine. Salud!
"Strong" Catholics in America on the decline
The Pew Forum reports that "the percentage of U.S. Catholics who consider themselves 'strong' members of the Roman Catholic Church has never been lower than it was in 2012." The number, according to Pew's analysis of the General Social Survey, is 27% (even lower than the number for "mainline Protestants"). A bit:
"[O]ver the past four decades, self-reported church attendance has declined among 'strong' Catholics as well as among Catholics overall. The share of all Catholics who say they attend Mass at least once a week has dropped from 47% in 1974 to 24% in 2012; among 'strong' Catholics, it has fallen more than 30 points, from 85% in 1974 to 53% last year."
Time for some evangelization!
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
