This post is to say amen, in general, to Fred Hiatt's lament today in the Washington Post:
As the Bush presidency implodes, some of its worst policies mercifully will go, too -- including, we can hope, the torture and unregulated detention of alleged enemy fighters that have so discredited the country throughout the world.
But valuable strands of policy also may end up strewn in the wreckage, victims (in varying combinations) of President Bush's ineptitude, inconstancy and unpopularity. Among these are what Bush called compassionate conservatism, now moribund; American promotion of democracy abroad, now flailing; and accountability in elementary and high school education, losing ground as it approaches a major test in Congress.
As Hiatt points out, compassionate conservatism in the sense of facilitating religious and other private organizations' work with the needy -- the faith-based and community organizations initiative -- is moribund in large part because the administration denied it any real funding from the start ("kneecapped it," as one congressional supporter put it).
As cycles of poverty and hopelessness remain a national scandal, I'd still argue that government policy should aim to mobilize and encourage the efforts of the widest range of community social-service providers, including faith-based providers. This approach can still encompass a wide range of values and thus, I hope, still be attractive to many Americans. If the conditions on the government's assistance are marked by a flexibility that respects the different ways that different organizations provide the services, then this approach can embody the Catholic twin principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. At its best, the Bush initiative acknowledged that personal transformation often plays a crucial role, along with material assistance, in changing the circumstances of those in need -- an emphasis that appeals to many evangelicals. And liberals in the vein of Sojourners' Jim Wallis likewise have recognized that giving substantial weight to private, community organizations and individual transformation can make the provision of assistance more effective and thus can bolster the case for putting more effort and resources into the whole project.
On educational accountability, Hiatt calls for fixing the problems with No Child Left Behind rather than scrapping it altogether. He doesn't mention continuing experiments with school voucher programs, but he should (they generally run up against the reluctance of middle-class voters and the determination of the teachers' unions, but they can get enacted for cases of real educational meltdown).
I'm not holding my breath that any 2008 candidates will pick up on this whole package of themes (especially not the Democrats on vouchers, or the Republicans on significant spending). But I still think there are opening for candidates to appeal across ideological lines, to embrace some of these themes and keep them from being buried with Bush.
Yesterday, June 30, the Holy Father issued his Letter to the Church in China that he signed on Pentecost Sunday, May 27 of this year. While containing some careful nuance, the letter is straightforward on vital matters covering two principal issues: (1) the present situation of the Church in China and it the relevant theological issues involving the proper, respective roles of the Church and the state; and, (2) guidelines for pastoral matters in China that have been affected by the parallel existence of the “underground” Church and the “patriotic” Church. The text of the Pope’s letter is [HERE] along with the accompanying Explanatory Note [HERE].
Throughout his letter, Pope Benedict expresses the need for respectful and constructive dialogue with all concerned in the issues involving the existence of the Church in China. In particular, the Holy Father stresses the need for this type of rapport between the political organs of the People’s Republic of China and the Holy See. But he is also clear about his distinct role as Successor of Peter, which he mentions throughout his letter, and his accompanying authority as the Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter. I believe that the Holy Father’s emphasis of these two points has far greater application than the Church in China since these remarks appear to have universal application.
Since our Mirror of Justice project addresses the development of Catholic legal theory which is often applied in the context of the pressing political, social, economic, and cultural issues of the day (especially within the United States), I would like to offer a few brief thoughts on why I think the Pope’s letter relates to our work within MOJ.
First of all, Pope Benedict relies on his encyclical Deus Caritas Est when he addresses the proper and respective roles of the state and the Church and the relationship that ensues between them. In doing so, he reiterates that it is not the role of the Church by itself to engage in political causes to bring about the “most just society possible.” Benedict acknowledges that this is the proper role of the state; however, the Church cannot remain idle as the state pursuits this objective. The Church in this regard is a teacher who must exercise her maternal and educational responsibility by unceasingly presenting rational argument and spiritual guidance essential to achieving a just society in all parts of the world. A just society, in short, is not achieved solely through political movement but with the continued and complementary assistance of intellectual understanding and caritas that will always remain the proper contributions of the Church.
In light of this initial statement, the Pope raises a second important point that bears on the work of the contributors of MOJ—indeed, on the work of all Americans. The attainment of the most just society, and surely the achievement of a more just society, cannot be expected if there remains constant conflict between the Church and civil authorities. However, while respecting this important principle about respective roles and interchange, the Church neither can remain passive to any situation where any state or official attempts to interfere in the educational and spiritual missions of the Church that pertain to achieving justice for all members of the human family. While the Church must respect that its faithful must be good citizens who are active contributors to of the political community and to the society in which the state is present, the State must respect and guarantee the freedom of the Church, who is both teaching mother and faithful members of the Body of Christ. This is the plea that Pope Paul VI made to all civil leaders when he commented on the adoption of the Declaration of Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae Personae, when he stated that all the Church asks for from governments is freedom. In light of this appeal made at the Second Vatican Council and following the example of Thomas More, the faithful are to be their society’s loyal subjects and God’s first. This mandates both freedom from control by the state and freedom for Christ and His Church.
This brings me to a third important point made by Benedict having global application beyond China. The Pope speaks several times of the universal Church that is present in China. He understands that there is the existence of the local Church—be it in China, France, Italy, the United States, or elsewhere—but there is one Church of Christ which Catholics acknowledge in the Creed, the fundamental articles of faith, when they speak of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that is the universal community of the disciples of Jesus Christ who are led by the Successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff. And it is in his office of Peter’s successor that Benedict serves as the “perpetual and visible source and foundation” of this essential unity. So, when our fellow citizens in the United States speak of the American Church, they would be more accurate in referring to the Church in the United States that is a component of the Church universal united with and through Peter and his successors. As Benedict says in his letter to the Church in China, “It is therefore indispensable, for the unity of the Church in individual nations, that every Bishop should be in communion with the other Bishops, and that all should be in visible and concrete communion with the Pope.”
A fourth point made by Benedict has clear relevance to recent developments in the United States regarding Catholic politicians who, while stating that they remain privately faithful to the Church’s teachings, must remain unencumbered to exercise their conscience so as not to impose their faith on constituents who are not Catholic. In this context, the Holy Father reminds all in his letter to the Church in China that the Church is apostolic, and no civil authority or official can claim to be above this apostolic authority of the Church as represented in its local bishops and national Episcopal conferences in union with the Successor of Peter. When officials representing the civil authority claim this superior role dealing with matters of faith and Church teachings, they usurp apostolic authority which is not properly theirs. No government official, who also claims membership in the Church, can rely on principles of independence and autonomy, self-management and “democracy” to exercise apostolic authority which is solely that of the Church, “one, holy, catholic and apostolic…” Perhaps some Catholics are comfortable in blurring this crucial distinction; however, the Holy Father is not.
My commentary of the Holy Father’s important letter has been all too brief. I am hopeful that his correspondence will be read by most Americans, including contributors and readers of MOJ. This letter merits our conscientious, judicious, and prayerful study. And now, in anticipation of the Fourth of July, I must go off to the parish at which I am assisting this summer to celebrate the Eucharist and deliver my “Let Freedom Ring” homily on this Thirteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time.RJA sj
On July 10, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia is hosting an event, "Highlights of the Supreme Court Term: How Has the New Conservative Majority Affected the Court?," at 5:00 p.m. Among other things, the event involves a discussion about the Term among Jan Crawford Greenburg, Prof. Geoff Stone, and me. For more information, click here.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and predict friendly-but-spiriteddisagreement about Carhart and Catholic Justices.
John Allen 's latest column discussesthe "feminization of the Church", evidenced by statistics showing the overwhelming predominance of women in the growing ranks of the lay ecclesial ministry that is assuming a greater & greater role in parish life. He discusses the general discomfort with this trend, based on fears that too much "feminization" of the Church makes it less attractive to men. He also discusses the bind the Church finds itself in that keeps it from working too hard to attract more men to the lay ecclesial ministry to balance things out -- it doesn't want to siphon off men who might otherwise choose to become priests.
On men's "alienation" from church, Allen cites some recent books:
In that light, some recent writers have voiced concern that Christianity actually alienates men. David Murrow's Why Men Hate Going to Church (Nelson Books, 2004) and Leon J. Podles' The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity (Spence, 1999), illustrate the point. Murrow is a Presbyterian and Podles a Catholic, but both have noticed something similar about their respective denominations.
As Podles put it succinctly, "Women go to church, men go to football games."
I'd be interested from hearing from some of you men bloggers -- do you, in fact, feel your own churches are become "feminized" to the extent that the church experience is somehow alienating?
Allen ends with this interesting social justice challenge:
One final observation is worth making. If lay ecclesial ministry continues to be a largely female profession, church officials will want to pay close attention to its impact on salary levels.
A 2007 study by the AFL-CIO found that as job categories come to be dominated by women, the social prestige attached to the position declines, as do average wages. Employment categories in which women occupy 70 percent or more of the jobs, the study found, typically pay a third less than jobs that are similar in terms of the skills required and the nature of the work, but which are more likely to be held by men. The 25.6 million American women who work in these predominantly female jobs lose an average of $3,446 in income each per year, compared to holding a similar job which is less gender-defined. Since men typically earn more than women across the board, the four million men who work in predominately female occupations lose an average of $6,259 each per year. Together, this amounts to a whopping $114 billion loss for men and women in predominately female jobs in the United States.
For a church that supports a "just wage" in the broader society, making sure its own employees are not the object of gender-based discrimination in wages will be an on-going challenge.
With just a little more than three weeks until Book Seven ... Alan Jacobs of Wheaton College offers his speculations on how it will all end. I tend to agree with the author of this enjoyable book, John Granger, that the Harry Potter books are "the most charming and challenging Christian fiction for children since Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia." The themes of the power of sacrificial love, the dangers of pride, the imperative of justice for the downtrodden, etc., are unmistakable though never heavy-handed. Then there's this catalog of J.K. Rowling's own statements hinting at her Christian sensibility in the books.
The latest testimony in the scandal concerning the firings of U.S. attorneys:
Paul K. Charlton, one of nine U.S. attorneys fired last year, told members of Congress yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has been overzealous in ordering federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, including in an Arizona murder case in which no body had been recovered. . . .
Charlton testified that he asked Justice officials to reconsider [their directive, against his recommendation, to seek the death penalty in the case] and had what he called a "memorable" conversation with Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty. Michael J. Elston, then McNulty's chief of staff, called Charlton to relay that the deputy had spent "a significant amount of time on this issue with the attorney general, perhaps as much as five to 10 minutes," and that Gonzales had not changed his mind. Charlton said he then asked to speak directly with Gonzales and was denied.
Last August, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, sent Elston a dismissive e-mail about the episode that said: "In the 'you won't believe this category,' Paul Charlton would like a few minutes of the AG's time." The next month, Charlton's name appeared on a list of prosecutors who should be fired, which Sampson sent to the White House.
On Monday, Ave Maria School of Law's Dean Bernard Dobranski attempted to censure and begin dismissal proceedings against tenured professor Steven Safranek, a founder of the school. Professor Safranek was involved with the faculty's complaint to the school's accreditor, has filed a complaint with law enforcement against Dobranski, and recently called for a renewal of the faculty's earlier "vote of no confidence" in governance.
Professor Safranek has worked in prestigious law firms, and clerked for Judge O'Scannlain on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has been admitted to practice before federal courts, including the US Supreme Court. He has numerous publications and is the Executive Director and Founder of The True Marriage Project, an extension of Safranek's interest in "helping to ensure the survival and growth of the institution most critical to society, the family".
Safranek is in good company. Recall that another Law School founder, Professor Emeritus Charles Rice of Notre Dame, was also terminated by Dobranski and booted from the Law School Board for questioning institutional governance and the legality of Monaghan's proposed Florida town concept. Ave Maria's history of firing whistleblowers is well-known.
More will be posted as this story develops. See Fumare for commentary here and here. [endquote]
I encourage those disturbed by this to review earlier posts on AveWatch and Fumare to get a fuller sense of what has been going on.
The conservative alliance at the court may be fractious but not fragile, strong enough to withstand Justice Scalia’s “tweaking and needling,” as Prof. Richard W. Garnett of Notre Dame Law School describes it.
“I look at it as a bit of a kabuki dance,” said Professor Garnett, who clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist and is close to the court’s conservatives. He said he had no doubt that Justice Scalia had “huge respect for the new chief as a person and as a lawyer.”
What is visible now, he said, is the latest iteration of the endless struggle between the need for stability in the law and the desire to correct previous mistakes.
“Different people who call themselves conservatives resolve that tension in different ways,” Professor Garnett said, adding that Justice Scalia was “laying down markers, making sure the arguments are out there to be used in later cases.”
Let's put disputes over the propriety of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property to the side for a moment. Anyone care to defend a courthouse portrait of Jesus? If so, your services are needed in Slidell, Louisiana. (HT: Religion Clause) Whatever creative Establishment Clause argument city officials can come up with, the rally last night did not help their cause:
[P]rotesters claimed that the portrait, which has been on display since the building opened in 1997, has never posed a problem and fairly represents the majority of residents in their largely Christian community. . . .
"You know, (the ACLU) is picking on a small community," said Randy Lee, 60, of Slidell. A self-described Christian fundamentalist, he gripped a hand-lettered sign that read "In God We Trust."
"Christians are seen as very passive. It's time for Christian people to stand up and say, 'Hey!'"
The rally lasted about an hour and was peppered with prayer and shouts of "Hallelujah!" and "Praise Jesus!" Toward the end of her speech, the Rev. Kathleen Javery-Bacon, of the Holy Ghost and Fire Revival Ministries in Slidell, raised her arm to the sky while chanting, "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus" as the crowd echoed her cry.
Robert Putnam (of Bowling Alone fame) is apparently nervous about releasing his new study because he fears it will be hijacked by anti-immigration folks. I can see why:
Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”
In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.
Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”
Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.
Rod Dreher comments: "I predict this research will have absolutely zero impact on the immigration debate. Why? Because Diversity is a dogmatic secular religion."
