There are some interesting posts up, by Prof. Richard Painter, over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Painter on torture: "It's Just Plain Wrong"
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Lukacs, "Last Rites"
Check out this very interesting review, over at the very interesting Plumb Lines blog, of John Lukacs' new autobiography.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
What would you fight for?
As MOJ readers know, I am a big fan of Notre Dame's "Alliance for Catholic Education." The other day, Fr. Tim Scully, the energy behind this great program, sent out, to former A.C.E. teachers and other friends of the program, a great e-mail (which he gave me permission to post), about a vital challenge confronting us today:
Dear Friends of ACE,
I've been thinking a lot this week about those NBC Notre Dame commercials that ask, "What would you fight for?"
In ACE, we've always fought for Catholic schools, but the recent debate over the parental choice program in Washington, DC has made it clear to me that the fight for Catholic schools and the fight for parental school choice are, in so many ways, the same fight.
Today I'd like to ask you to join me in this fight, both to keep the DC parental choice program alive and to expand our capacity to provide educational opportunities to poor families. The social justice and education teachings of the Church have always courageously asserted that parents are the primary educators of their children, and that parents must have the right to choose the school their children attend. This is the central value proposition of parental choice. This is why I am so committed to this battle.
The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program currently allows 1,700 kids in Washington to go to a school chosen by their parents, and many of those families choose Catholic schools. To qualify for these scholarships, these families’ income must be at or below 185% of the federal poverty line. The average family income is under $23,000, and 99% of recipients are minority. So we're talking about some of the poorest, most marginalized families in one of the worst school districts in America.
If we're not going to fight for them, then who will we fight for?
I asked you to get involved a few weeks ago when I learned that Congress was threatening to end the DC parental choice program. I’m deeply grateful that so many of you responded. We're now gearing up for what's sure to be a long, tough reauthorization process, and we will need your continued help. Over the coming weeks and months, we need to build a network of friends who will be ready to mobilize to fight for these children. We need tenacious advocates for kids who will be willing to write and call and e-mail folks in power on behalf of kids who have none. And we need to leverage every available resource at our disposal to make the case for parental choice to those who will determine its fate.
So what to do?
We’ve set up two websites to serve as Fellowship HQ on this issue. You can go [here] or, if you're on Facebook, you can join the ACE Fellowship group there. These spaces will be updated weekly and will provide news updates, guidance for those of you who are eager to get involved, and resources you can use to learn more about the issue and educate your friends and family. Most importantly, we’ll use these sites to mobilize our networks, provide direction, and coordinate our efforts when the time is right.
What would you fight for? I’d love to hear St. Paul answer that question. Near the end of his life, Paul tells his friend Timothy:
I have fought the good fight to the end;
I have run the race to the finish;
I have kept the faith.
For me, keeping the faith means fighting for the rights of poor and marginalized parents to seek better schools for their kids.
This is the good fight. I hope you’ll join it.
Fr. Tim
* * *
Go the the website. Get involved. Fight for Catholic schools, religious freedom, and social justice.
Response to Amy
I just realized that I failed to respond to Amy's question, here. After presenting, helpfully, different "models" for "engagement", she asked:
My question is whether within the expanse of Catholic education in the United States we might want to encourage a variety of models engagement (perhaps with a baseline and a ceiling, but with quite a bit of room for difference) with the culture. Rick, do you agree?
I do! As I see it, though, the debate about Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama is not a debate about whether Notre Dame should "[e]mphasize dialogue with difference so as to engage the culture from a stance of openness to exchange and growth in mutual understanding." It is about whether Notre Dame's own purported mission and character, and her aspirations to be true to that mission and character, create -- in Amy's words -- a "baseline" that, in this case, given all the givens, she has not respected.
Duke v. Villanova
At times like this (if only to distract oneself from the painful task of reading the latest press release from the good people at my own University of Notre Dame), one turns, naturally, to college basketball. Tonight, my own Duke Blue Devils -- if only Notre Dame honor-dispensing mechanism had better aim, and was directed toward Coach K.! -- take on the Villanova whats-its in the NCAA mens basketball tournament. We'll see if the genius of St. Augustine is up to the task of taming the spirit of yesteryear's tobacco magnates.
No doubt, brothers Sargent and Brennan take another view of the matter . . .
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
NDResponse
Here is a link to the website of an ad hoc umbrella organization called "ND Reponse," "a coalition of University-sponsored student groups [that] has been organized to lead student response." Here is a bit from their statement regarding the University's decision to honor Pres. Obama:
In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, CSC’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principle commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. Further, the University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live. . . .
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Bishop D'arcy's statement
Available here. As one would expect, given the author, the statement is gracious, but also clear.
My decision [not to attend graduation] is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.
I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.
I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.
Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.
Monday, March 23, 2009
More on commencement speakers / response to Rob
So, I believe that the University of Notre Dame should not, at this time, honor President Obama with a ceremonial degree and the commencement-speaker role. To say this, by the way, is not to endorse the tiresome anti-Notre Dame "great hate" screeds that are circulating around the web, from people who long ago gave up on Notre Dame in any event. As I've said many times, Notre Dame matters, and it is precisely because it still *is* meaningfully Catholic that its mistakes are disappointing. It's easy for [insert name here] Completely Pure Catholic College to avoid dilemmas (and mistakes) like Notre Dame's, because no one cares about that College.
Rob asks if there is a "bright line" principle that yields the results (a) it was fine for Notre Dame to honor President Bush in 2001 and (b) Notre Dame should not honor President Obama, in the same way, in 2009. In my view, "probably not." That is, I have no objection to hosting (indeed, I agree with Fr. John Jenkins that it is, generally speaking, a good thing to host) Presidents -- including Presidents with imperfect records and unsound views -- at Catholic universities. Certainly, it would be fine for Notre Dame to invite President Obama to give an address -- as opposed to commencement, with an honorary degree -- at Notre Dame.
Its a question of degree, it seems to me. The "Bush in 2001" / "Obama in 2009" comparison -- with all due respect -- seems quite weak. That Bush failed to block some executions while Texas governor is not the same thing, and just isn't as bad, as what Obama has done, and will do, on the abortion and embryo-destruction fronts. After all, at the time, Bush's signature policies were education reform and the faith-based initiative. (By the way, does anyone think that, had Vice-President Cheney been elected in 2008, that he would have been invited to give the 2009 commencement at Notre Dame?)
But, to be clear -- I am not ruling out the possibility that Notre Dame could invite President Obama to speak at graduation. But not now, not so soon after his insultingly bad statement regarding embryo-destructive research (in which he brushed aside moral philosophy as "politics"). There are, I am happy to admit, things about his election and achievements that a Catholic university can celebrate. No doubt. But now? There is no way to avoid the impression, given the recent stem-cell and abortion-related decisions, that Notre Dame is un-bothered by these deeply unjust actions.
And, just as bad, in my view, is the fact that the wonderful awarding of the Laetare to a real hero of the Church -- Mary Ann Glendon -- is now cast in a strange "balance / both sides" kind of light. (I do not believe that is how it was intended.)
Again, though: I am quite put off by the "Christendom College is the only way to go! Notre Dame sux! No real Catholics go to Notre Dame" crowd's reaction to all this. If you decided long ago that the future of the Church is the catacombs, and that the future and mission of Notre Dame is not worth contributing to, then why is Notre Dame's (mistaken) decision here something even worth your notice?
UPDATE: More, in a similar vein, from me here.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
"We Need More than Lip Service" . . .
. . . says evangelical leader and Pres. Obama-supporter David Gushee:
It's no secret that a group of self-identified centrist or moderate evangelicals built a friendly relationship with Barack Obama and rejected the Christian right's vilification of him. I am in this group, which has also included megachurch pastor Joel Hunter, evangelical lobbyist Rich Cizik, academic-activist Ron Sider and others. . . .
. . . I knew from the beginning that if Obama took typical Democratic positions on abortion-related issues, this centrist evangelical friendliness toward him and his administration would be tested. I knew that during the campaign he had hewed closely to the standard Democratic pro-choice line. But his party's platform also promised a commitment to abortion-reduction efforts, and he has echoed that language. Some of us continue to dream that he will roll out a major abortion-reduction initiative.
Such an initiative has not been offered. But what has occurred are a series of disappointingly typical Democratic abortion-related moves . . .
Mexico City, conscience clause, Sebelius, embryonic stem cells. In each case, I have been asked by friends at Democratic or progressive-leaning think tanks not just to refrain from opposing these moves, but instead to support them in the name of a broader understanding of what it means to be pro-life. I mainly refused.
But I do confess that my desire to retain good relationships with the Obama team has tempted me to give what was asked in return for the big payoff of a serious abortion-reduction initiative that I could wholeheartedly support.
But this kind of calculation is precisely what has gotten Christian political activists in trouble in the past, not just for 40 years but for 1,600 years. We gain access to Caesar in order to affect policy; we hold onto access even if it involves compromising some of what we want in policy; in the end, we can easily forget what policies we were after in the first place. I think this definitely happened to the Christian right. It doesn't need to be repeated by the Christian center or left. . . .
The USCCB and conscience-protection
The USCCB is, apparently, gearing up to try to stop, or at least modify, the Obama Administration's planned recission of the Bush Administration's HHS regulations dealing with the conscience-rights of health-care workers. We'll see . . .
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
