Friday, February 22, 2013
Garnett on religious exemptions on "Talk of the Nation"
My friend and mentor John Witte and I did a bit yesterday, on "Talk of the Nation", about religious exemptions -- their history, rationale(s), importance, and frequency. If you are interested, check it out. If there was a consistent theme in the callers' questions, it was "is it right for religion to get special treatment?" and if there was a consistent theme in John's and my responses, it was "yes, it should."
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Weigel on the next Pope
George Weigel writes, in the Wall Street Journal, about what we should hope the Holy Spirit gives us with the next Pope:
A radically converted Christian disciple who believes that Jesus Christ really is the answer to the question that is every human life. An experienced pastor with the courage to be Catholic and the winsomeness to make robust orthodoxy exciting. A leader who is not afraid to straighten out the disastrous condition of the Roman Curia, so that the Vatican bureaucracy becomes an instrument of the New Evangelization, not an impediment to it.
The shoes of the fisherman are large shoes to fill.
Large indeed!
George Will on solitary confinement
That noted bleeding-heart-lefty, George Will, has a very powerful column today, challenging the widespread practice of solitary confinement in America's prisons:
In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court said of solitary confinement essentially what Dickens had said: “A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others, still, committed suicide.” Americans should be roused against this by decency — and prudence.
Mass incarceration is expensive (California spends almost twice as much on prisons as on universities) and solitary confinement costs, on average, three times as much per inmate as in normal prisons. And remember: Most persons now in solitary confinement will someday be back on America’s streets, some of them rendered psychotic by what are called correctional institutions.
Maryland death-penalty repeal advances
It appears that a bill to repeal the death penalty in Maryland is advancing, and is likely to -- eventually -- be enacted into law. Good. The death penalty is constitutionally permissible, and it is not the job of judges to abolish or undermine it. But, it should be rejected, by us, for the reasons set out by Archbishop William Lori (you know, that "conservative" who, some imagine, has been speaking out forcefully about the importance of religious freedom for merely "partisan" reasons):
There are many worthy arguments against the death penalty regarding bias in
its application, its ineffectiveness as a deterrent, its costliness, and the
emotional toll of death penalty proceedings on victims. As a faith community,
however, our perspective goes beyond these issues. While those who have done
terrible harm to others deserve punishment, we urge a response that meets evil
with a justice worthy of our best nature as human beings, enlightened by faith
in the possibility of redemption and forgiveness.
As the bishops of the United States have consistently said, “We oppose
capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes,
but for what it does to all of us as a society. … We cannot overcome crime by
simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by
ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers
the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.”
A response to Marty Lederman
Michael Perry has directed readers' attention to a discussion by Marty Lederman of the HHS mandate and, in particular, of a proposed bulletin insert which observes, among other things, that the mandate (in its current form and, it appears, in whatever form it eventually takes) would “force the employees of Catholic agencies to accept coverage for themselves and their children that violates their Church’s teaching on respect for human life.”
In the course of explaining why he thinks this emphasis on the "employees" (and their children) is misguided, Marty writes that the "claim of an alleged 'substantial' religious burden based on such a complicity-with-evil rationale was tenuous from the start." Now, let's put aside the important fact that an alleged burden can, under RFRA, be "substantial" even if some people believe the theological premises of the claims about that burden are unsound or unorthodox. I think the RFRA argument against the mandate (in its current form) is strong -- indeed, it presents what should be an easy case -- but I think it's important to remember that the "complicity-with-evil rationale" is not, and has not been, the only argument in play. See, for example, my colleague Dan Philpott's excellent essay, here. Dan writes:
The debate over cooperation with evil, however, misses what is most at stake for Christians organizations in the HHS mandate, which is much the same as what has been most at stake for the Christian church in its relationship with the state over many centuries, which in turn is what is most at stake for the church in religious freedom: their right to give witness to the truths that they believe. . . .
Following the Catholic tradition, I regard the criterion of cooperation with evil as a valid one for a wide range of moral dilemmas, including the one at hand. The debate over cooperation with evil, however, whose every thrust and parry grows increasingly complex in its distinctions regarding intentionality, causality, and directness, obscures the larger, more important issue of whether Christian organizations enjoy the freedom to give witness to their professed truths.
To witness means to proclaim or to give testimony for a truth that the proclaimer believes is maximally important. To witness is to communicate a message – in the Christian’s case, that of God’s salvation of the world through Jesus Christ. For a Catholic, this salvation is embodied in, and its meaning for the Christian believer is manifested through, the teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teachings about contraception and the sanctity of life. Many Protestant churches make parallel claims, with due variations, about the role of the church in salvation. For (many) Christians, then, salvation is achieved through corporate entities as well as the faith of individuals. Consonant with this mission, churches and their affiliated universities, schools, hospitals, and orphanages share a duty not simply to avoid cooperating with what is false but to proclaim loudly what is true. . .
Marty also suggests that "the . . . government has gone much further than was necessary in order to accommodate religious objections" and characterizes this going-further as "generous." As I see it, though, (a) the government has not, in fact, gone as far as RFRA actually requires in order to accommodate religious objections (e.g., the sincere objections of for-profit employers), (b) a better proposal would have been to exempt entirely religious employers, broadly understood (including hospitals, universities, and social-welfare agencies), and (c) the movement we have seen (or, more precisely, that has been proposed for consideration) -- some of which, in my view, represents a genuine improvement -- is better regarded as a grudging and belated effort to avoid possible bad results in litigation, and to re-connect with some political allies, than as "very generous[]."
Zywicki's reflections on the Pope's resignation
My friend Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason, posted some "personal notes on Pope Benedict's resignation" at the Volokh Conspiracy -- one of the most-read blogs there is. Todd's thoughts are, well, (no surprise) thoughtful; the stuff in the comments, sadly (but revealingly), really is not.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Disagreement, contempt, and the "merriment of heaven"
Prof. Robert Miller (Iowa) has a really nice post up at First Things, called "Thanatopsis for Ronald Dworkin." The last few paragraphs really stood out for me. This is a long quote (one that I hope our FT friends will still think is "fair use"!), but it's a good one:
Especially with people whom we do not know personally, it is easy to pass from thinking that a person holds bad ideas to thinking that the person who holds such ideas is a bad person—to move from disagreeing with a person to contemning him. This is a moral lapse, of course, because we should love everyone and contemn no one, even people who really are bad, but it is a mistake in another way as well, for it usually involves us in a simple factual error.
In my experience (and as a religious and political conservative in academia, I have a lot of experience of this kind), when we get to know the people with whom we disagree deeply, it usually turns out that they are very good people—people who love their spouses and children, who work hard at their jobs, who have overcome serious hardships and obstacles in life, who are kind to strangers, who are truly upstanding and morally admirable people. Rather than despising them, we end up liking and admiring them.
With people we never meet, however, we do not have this opportunity to see more of them than their ideas. Seeing just the ideas and thinking these are wrong, we too often dismiss the person with the ideas, and people we dismiss we easily come to hate. Reflect for a moment on your feelings for your least favorite politician currently in office. Allowing ourselves to have such feelings, however, reduces us as human beings because the final end of human nature requires that we will the good of all human beings, and it also has deleterious consequences, for it erodes social capital. It makes it harder for us to trust those with whom we disagree, to discuss matters reasonably with them, and to find common ground where such ground can be found in order to work together despite persisting disagreements.
This move from disagreeing with a person’s ideas (even rightly disagreeing with them) to holding the person in contempt—this is one of the things that Our Blessed Lord was condemning when he said, “Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22). But even if we restrain our tongues, it is not as easy to restrain our ill will, which is what really counts.
One way for a believing Christian to test his attitude to someone with whom he disagrees profoundly is this: Ask yourself how you would feel about this person’s enjoying a high place in heaven, even a place higher than the one you yourself hope to have. If you’re happy about such a prospect, you have the right attitude; if you’re disturbed by it, you don’t. It’s very difficult to get our feelings in order in this matter. It’s akin to breaking our attachments to the worldly things we love the most.
I never met Ronald Dworkin, which is too bad for me, because I am sure I would have enjoyed questioning him about his ideas and perhaps being questioned by him in turn. This, however, is but a minor misfortune. I still hope to meet him in the merriment of heaven.
Well said.
Michael Sean Winters is *almost* exactly right . . . and totally wrong (about Duke)
Over at Distinctly Catholic, my fellow college-hoops fan Michael Sean Winters is exactly right about this:
This is the best time of year. College basketball is on almost every night. And, this year, the level of competition is stunning.
Unfortunately, he goes off the rails with this:
This past weekend, #2 Duke lost to unranked Maryland. Anytime Duke loses is a good day to be alive. (Sorry Rick!)
Now, let's put aside the fact (on this issue "there can be no debate") that the Maryland Terps (and their home-court fans) are classless louts who should wake up and apologize for imagining that they are the Duke Blue Devils' "rivals." More important is the crucial fact that all good Catholics have a moral obligation to cheer for, and indeed to revere, Coach Mike K. and his team. If anyone says otherwise, anathema sit.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Charles Reid's strange diagnosis
Michael has again posted a Chuck Reid HuffPo column and, like several of Reid's other recent columns, the piece mixes some accurate reporting with some misguided assertions. Reid describes the Holy Father as the "last 20th century pope," he writes, and notes that "what he never did, what he never understood there was any need to do, was to open a serious and respectful dialogue with the secular world." This is a very strange and, in any event, quite wrong statement. One might start, for example, here.
Of course, when it comes to misguided commentary on Pope Benedict's legacy, service, thought, and work, it could be a lot worse. See, for example, Bill Keller's silly rant (translation: "The Pope failed to understand that, as Pope, he should have changed the Church and her teachings in order to make them more congenial to my own views.").
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Some thoughts on the bishops' response, lawyers, and for-profits (responding to MSW)
Michael Sean Winters has a detailed response to the Catholic bishops' recent response to the Administration's proposed changes to the mandate. While there are (as usual!) some things in his post which strike me as sensible, I thought it missed the mark a bit in two places. First, there was what seemed to me to be an unfair swipe at the "lawyers" -- especially the great folks at the Becket Fund (who litigated the case that Winters and I agree was a huge win in Hosanna-Tabor, where the Court rejected what Winters and I agree was the Administration's strikingly unsound argument against the ministerial exception). "The lawyers" have had and should have an important role in this debate because we are talking about, well, a law, about what it actually says and does, and about whether that law is, well, legal. It is not fair to say that the Becket Fund has "an agenda that has more to do with politics than with pastoring" because -- while it's true that the lawyers at Becket are not pastors -- their work over the years has been admirably non-partisan, in the sense that they defend the religious liberty of all, "from the Amish to Zoroastrians." They do not do the work they do to help Republicans, or hurt Obama, but to defend what the Church's pastors at Vatican II reminded us is a fundamental human right.
It's also worth noting, I think, that the continuing urgent need for lawyers in this debate has been (to me) demonstrated by the unwillingness of many commentators, journalists, and bloggers to read carefully the new proposal and figure out what -- given the relevant regulatory and legal environment -- it actually would, and would not, (and can, and cannot) do. Although, as I've said several times, the proposed change to the definition of exempt religious employers is welcome, the confidence expressed in some quarters that the new proposal eliminates the basis for religious-freedom concerns is, it seems to me, premature. Of course, if we do, eventually, get a new version of the mandate that *does* answer the concerns, then that will be a very good thing. It is not the case that the "lawyers" want to litigate for the heck of it; they want to solve the problem.
Finally, Michael Sean writes: "The most disappointing aspect of the bishops’ statement was their continued insistence on an exemption for private, for-profit employers. As I wrote Monday, this is a proper concern for the Becket Fund, it is not a proper concern for the bishops. And, furthermore, I think we need to be very careful in this hyper-individualistic society of ours, in advocating an individual’s right to claim an exemption from a law based on their religious beliefs." I am afraid I disagree. While it is true (as I have said often on this blog) that the enterprise of accommodating faith-based objections to general laws can be a complicated one -- one that might well "play out" differently, in some cases, for for-profit employers than for parochial schools -- the idea that the religious-freedom rights of business owners is "not a proper concern for the bishops" seems very wrong to me. Religious-freedom is a human right, and is presented as such in authoritative Catholic teaching. How could violations of that right not be a concern of the bishops, simply because their own and the Church's institutional interests are (perhaps) taken care of. Winters is worried about the argument that "an individual [has a ] right to claim an exemption from a law based on their religious beliefs" and, to be sure, that argument can be abused and should, in some cases, be rejected. That said, there is nothing objectionably "indvidualistic" -- it's in Dignitatis humanae -- about the argument that religion-based exemptions from general laws should generally be extended, to the extent possible, consistent with public order and the common good.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
