St. Anthony's high school in Newark is, after years of struggling, going to close. This shouldn't have to happen.
Friday, April 7, 2017
More evidence -- in this case, tragic evidence -- about the importance of school choice
Helfand on anti-Catholicism . . . and Trinity Lutheran
Here's an excellent piece by Prof. Michael Helfand (Pepperdine) on anti-Catholicism and the upcoming Trinity Lutheran case. (I wrote about the case here.)
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Sen. Tim Kaine's misguided and disappointing attack on Judge Gorsuch
Here is a link to Sen. Kaine's op-ed in which he contends that Judge Gorsuch, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, "jeopardizes women's rights." As we were told often, during the campaign, Sen. Kaine is a practicing, educated, well formed Catholic, and so it is surprising and disappointing that he would, in his piece, present the very idea of "complicity" as if it were something exotic or troubling. Put aside disagreements about the Court's application of the RFRA in Hobby Lobby and put aside also questions one might have about the religious objections raised in that case or in the Little Sisters litigation. Kaine writes:
"All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others."
"The wrongdoing of others"? Who are these "others," and what did they do wrong? They are the women who work for Hobby Lobby, and their "wrongdoing" was their desire to make their own choices about using contraception.
Moral questions of complicity in others' behavior had nothing to do with the legal question in this case. The only legal issue was whether the owner's beliefs about contraception conflicted with the ACA. So Judge Gorsuch's decision to inject his own editorial comment about women's "wrongdoing" was an insulting characterization of a personal choice protected by the law. His two uses of the phrase "all of us" also suggest that he was making a point far broader than what the parties to the case had presented to him.
But, of course "[m]oral questions of complicity in others' behavior had . . . to do with the legal question in this case." The entire point of both sets of cases was that the RFRA claimants objected, for reasons they described as religiously-informed moral reasons, to being required by the coverage mandate to be complicit in what they regarded as wrong. (Indeed, probably the leading -- even if, to me, unconvincing -- academic criticism of Hobby Lobby focuses precisely on the dangers the authors see in incorporating "complicity" into religious-freedom law.) I understand, certainly, that Sen. Kaine (and, probably, most people) do not think that, in fact, the conduct in question is "wrongdoing" but that "ha[s] nothing to do with the legal question in [the] case[s]." (This response by Kaine to a fact-checker reflects a similar mistake.)
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Some Pope St. John Paul II posts, on the anniversary of his death
Here are just a few, from the archives. RIP.
"The Jurisprudential Legacy of Pope John Paul II" (here).
"Pope John Paul II and the Law" (here).
Calendar of the Beatification (here).
"Remembering Pope John Paul II" (here).
"MOJ reflections of the first feast of St. John Paul II" (here).
"John Paul II and the Crisis of Modern Times" (here).
Monday, March 27, 2017
"To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party."
So argues Thomas Groome in today's New York Times. He writes:
By tradition and by our church’s teaching on social justice, many Catholics could readily return to voting reliably Democratic. But for this to happen, their moral concerns regarding abortion must get a hearing within the party, rather than being summarily dismissed. How might that happen?
To begin with, Democratic politicians should publicly acknowledge that abortion is an issue of profound moral and religious concern. As a candidate, Barack Obama did just that in a 2008 interview, saying, “Those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren’t expressing the full reality of it.”
Democrats should not threaten to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funds to be used for abortion except in extreme circumstances. They could also champion an aggressive program to promote adoption by strengthening the Adoption Assistance Act of 1980 and streamlining adoption procedures. The regulations in many states seem designed to discourage it.
Democratic politicians should also continue to frame their efforts to improve health and social services as a way to decrease abortions. The abortion rate dropped 21 percent from 2009 to 2014. That downward trend would most likely end if Republicans eliminate contraception services provided through the Affordable Care Act.
As I see it, these called-for developments -- while they would be welcome -- would not really do much to change the minds of those who regard, perhaps with regret, the Democratic Party as "the Abortion Party." The first proposal -- "acknowledge that abortion is a matter of profound . . . concern" -- is obviously sound, but it need not be accompanied by any changes in platform or policy. The second -- don't repeal the Hyde Amendment -- is also welcome, but it really involves simply maintaining a 40-year status quo. And the final one -- "continue to frame efforts" -- is about messaging, not policy. It seems to me that what could make a difference (but is very unlikely to happen, given the political givens) would be if the Democrats decided that their positions on abortion should roughly track those of the population as a whole.
Oral Arguments today in the church-plan case
The Court heard oral arguments today in a case that has very important religious-freedom and church-state dimensions and implications but has "flown under the radar" in the public conversation. As SCOTUSblog describes, "Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton (consolidated with two other related cases), . . . asks whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s exemption for church plans applies to pension plans maintained by church-affiliated organizations." Here is the brief of the USCCB, which is well worth a read.
Setting the record straight about Notre Dame's Center for Ethics and Culture
A few days ago, John Gehring, of "Faith in Public Life," wrote a kind of "what I saw behind the scenes" piece about a "conservative Catholic gathering in DC's Trump Tower." Among other things, the piece offered what was characterized as an account of some remarks by my friend and colleague, Carter Snead, who directs the Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture. Based on Gehring's account, Gary Caruso -- who works in the Department of Homeland Security and who has a regular column in The Observer (the student-run newspaper at the University of Notre Dame) -- wrote a critical, indeed more-than-a-little snarky attack on what he called the "near-sighted vision" of the Center.
As regular MOJ readers might remember, I'm a huge fan of the Center's work on campus and beyond. The annual Fall Conference the Center puts on is one of the highlights of the academic year. And, it turns out -- as Snead carefully and charitably sets out here -- that Gehring's account, and Caruso's attack, were misleading and misguided. Snead concludes with this: "We welcome everyone of good will who shares our love of civil discourse, Notre Dame, the Church and its much-needed countercultural teachings on human dignity and the common good."
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Princeton Theological Seminary pulls honor for Tim Keller
This is, I think, a very troubling (and revealing) development:
Faced with mounting criticism for its decision to give a major award to the Rev. Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan and one of the country’s best-known conservative Christian thinkers, Princeton Theological Seminary has reversed course and said Keller will not receive the honor.
In an email to faculty and students on Wednesday morning (March 22), the president of the venerable mainline Protestant seminary, the Rev. Craig Barnes, said he remains committed to academic freedom and “the critical inquiry and theological diversity of our community.”
But he said that giving Keller the annual Kuyper Prize for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness – named after a famous Dutch neo-Calvinist theologian – might “imply an endorsement” of Keller’s views against the ordination of women and LGBTQ people.
Now, I happen to agree that institutions of higher education should carefully about whom they honor and about the meanings of the awards they confer. But, Tim Keller is eminently worthy of being honored. Yes, my understanding is that he has traditional Christian views regarding marriage and sexual morality. He also is admirably charitable and civil in addressing these and all other matters. So, I agree with the principle that this statement reflects:
“Yes to academic freedom. Yes to listening to others whose opinions are different from our own (no matter how distasteful they may be),” Smith wrote on her blog, where she had initially blasted the award to Keller as “offensive.”
“No to giving large fancy prizes that can be confused with endorsement. Some may not be satisfied with this response. I think it’s a great compromise.”
I am not convinced, though, that it was appropriately applied in this case.
A short op-ed on Judge Gorsuch, the Court, and religious freedom
Here's a quick take, from me, at the Religion and Politics site. A bit, from the end:
Religious freedom is, still, our “first freedom.” If our most sacred things are not free, then nothing else that matters is, either. A government that imagines itself competent to re-arrange or supervise our beliefs about the transcendent is certainly not to be trusted when it comes to respecting our privacy or property. Religious liberty is not special pleading, and it is not a luxury good. It is foundational to our constitutional order and democratic aspirations. The Supreme Court can safeguard religious freedom, for everyone, but it matters at least as much that a commitment to human dignity is deeply rooted in politics, legislatures, and neighborhoods. Judge Neil Gorsuch’s record suggests that he understands this.
Friday, March 3, 2017
Vice President Pence to be Notre Dame's Commencement Speaker
The University of Notre Dame has announced that Vice President Pence will speak at this year's commencement (and receive an honorary degree). There had been a lot of debate, petitioning, etc., in anticipation of the possibility that the speaker and honoree this year would be President Trump.
Time flies: I cannot believe it's been almost 8 years since I wrote, in USA Today, to express (civilly, I hope) my regret and disappointment over the decision to honor then-newly-elected President Obama at Notre Dame's graduation. A little bit later, I wrote this short essay, "Whom Should a Catholic University Honor? Speaking with Integrity."
I am not among those who wanted Notre Dame to invite, or thought Notre Dame should invite, President Trump. Like it did to Fr. Jenkins, it seemed (and seems) to me that such an invitation would unfairly disrupt the students' graduation. Whether or not all of the high-octane, across-the-board opposition to President Trump is warranted (yet), it is simply a fact that his presence and speaking here would be very disruptive and disturbing to many. And, I didn't see that it would somehow "make up" for the honoring of President Obama (which I continue to think was unwarranted -- the honoring, that is) to honor President Trump. Invite him to speak, some time, but, in my view, there's no justification for honoring him.
Some will, I'm sure, protest Vice President Pence's invitation, and some will do so for reasons that, in my view, are reasons to appreciate and respect his service (e.g., he supported and I think is sincerely committed to school choice, abortion regulation, and religious freedom in Indiana -- notwithstanding misleading, inaccurate, and unfair attacks). I did not agree with the (failed) effort to prevent refugees from being resettled in Indiana, but -- in my view -- that effort does not, on balance, make the invitation inappropriate for a meaningfully Catholic university. I think I've come to the view that we should abandon the business of giving honorary degrees to commencement speakers -- or, at least, to elected officials -- but, since we have not, I am inclined to think that Notre Dame made a good decision, both in not awarding an honorary degree to the President and in inviting the Vice President to be the speaker.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
