At Books & Culture, Mark Gavreau Judge has this review of Andrew Sullivan's new book, "The Conservative Soul." From what I've been able to gather, from this and other reviews, Sullivan spends a fair bit of time in the book reflecting on Catholicism, and on his faith.
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Review of Sullivan, "The Conservative Soul"
Religious freedom in Turkey
Near the end of Ian "Crow's Ear" Fisher's piece, "A Coming Papal Visit Focuses Anger Among the Turks," in today's New York Times is this:
The status of Christians in Turkey has long been difficult. Greek Christians in Turkey have dwindled to fewer than 5,000, from an estimated 180,000 in 1923.
Much of the difficulty revolves around the Orthodox patriarchate, which is forbidden by law to train new priests or to elect a new leader who is not a Turkish citizen.
Good grief. To describe the situation of Christians in Turkey as merely "difficult," and to use 1923 (after the Armenian genocide) as the baseline for describing the disappearance of Christianity in one of its oldest historical homes, is -- to be charitable -- obtuse. (To be fair to Mr. Fisher, though, the State Department is not much better.)
Monday, October 2, 2006
Professor Thai's questions
Thanks to Professor Joseph Thai for his two questions. For what it's worth . . .
He asks, with respect to the Court's Religion Clauses jurisprudence:
(1) [W]hat, if anything, is “Catholic” about the jurisprudence of these justices [i.e., Justices Scalia and Kennedy]; and relatedly, (2) is it possible to identify what a “Catholic” position should be to on, say, the conflicting Sherbert and Smith approaches to FE, or the various EC principles out there.
In my view, which is not shared, I suspect, by most of my fellow MOJ-ers, the bottom line in the Smith case is right. That is, the Constitution, best understood, does not require governments to exempt religious believers or conduct from religion-neutral, generally applicable laws. (Of course, as Justice Scalia notes in Smith, it is entirely appropriate -- and, it is entirely "Catholic" -- for the politically accountable branches to grant generously religious exemptions.) In my view, the Church's religious-freedom teachings are not inconsistent with Smith, in that these teachings make it clear (to me, anyway) that religious exemptions need not be granted when they would be damaging to the common good. And, there is no "Catholic" reason for preferring judges' determinations about the appropriateness of exemptions in particular situations to those of legislators.
As for the Establishment Clause, it seems to me that the Catholic justices' views are squarely in line with the Catholic understanding of religious freedom under law, and an appropriate separation of church and state. I'm not sure what Professor Thai is getting at with respect to his invocation of "coercion"; I would have to disagree with any suggestion that any justice -- Catholic or not, liberal or conservative -- believes that the EC permits actual "coercion" in matters of religious conscience.
Red Mass homily
Archbishop Wuerl's homily from the recent "Red Mass" in Washington, D.C., is available online. (Thanks to "Whispers in the Loggia" for the link.) Here is a nice quote:
What is religion’s place in public life? As our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, tells us in his first encyclical letter, “Deus Caritas Est” (God Is Love): “[f]or her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated” (DCE 28). Politics and faith are mingled because believers are also citizens. Both Church and state are home for the same people.
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Steinfels on Theoconophobia
Peter Steinfels reviews a raft of recent religion-and-politics books, in The American Prospect.
The "Always Imminent" Death of the Law
Steve Smith has posted the paper that he delivered here at Notre Dame last March, for a conference we had on his latest book, "Law's Quandary." Here is the abstract:
Throughout the twentieth century, prominent legal thinkers confidently predicted that law as it has been practiced in the West for centuries was archaic and doomed to imminent extinction. Why did they think this, and why were they wrong? And why was "legal indeterminacy" such a source of anxiety to twentieth-century legal thinkers? This essay, given as a lecture at Notre Dame, suggests that the recurring predictions of law's demise and the pervasive angst about indeterminacy were manifestations of debilitating limitations in the philosophical framework within which twentieth-century thinkers understood law (and much else).
Patrick Brennan put it well: "Quandary sings!"
Duelling voter guides
Story here.
"In China, Churches Challenge the Rules"
An interesting story, in today's Washington Post:
A new breed of churches in this region of China has demonstrated a boldness and independence unmatched elsewhere in the country, despite strict government guidelines for places of worship.
Here in Wenzhou and the surrounding province of Zhejiang, just south of Shanghai, a growing number of congregations that began life as house churches -- unauthorized places of worship set up in private, often dilapidated homes -- have recently registered with the government, while continuing to spurn the rules of the official Protestant church in China. Like so many institutions in China, these churches now hover in a sort of legal netherworld.
Check it out.
Steve's reaction
I am surprised by Steve's reaction to my "Respect Life" Sunday insert. It is hard for me to see how the statement could have been fairly read as "striving for political influence," or as focusing too narrowly on abortion, or as unfriendly to dialogue, given that it included these words:
"To be People of Life, however – to live, serve, and proclaim the Gospel of Life – is not only to adopt a platform or take up a campaign. Our call is also to propose to our friends, communities, and fellow citizens the truth about who we are. . . . We are called also to embrace and proclaim the truth that human persons -- the embryo, the unborn child, the elderly and infirm, the guilty and the violent – are 'everlasting splendours,' and so may not be sacrificed for convenience, cost, revenge, or research."
Thursday, September 28, 2006
International Religious Freedom report
The U.S. Dep't of State's International Religious Freedom report for 2006 is available here.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
