"The quantity and quality of bishops in Ireland", here.
"Time for the [Irish] faithful to choose our own bishops", here.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Not only in Ireland, please God, but here on the western side of the pond too!
Only in America: Sarah Palin on "The Tonight Show"
Or should I say: Sarah Palin "pallin' around" on The Tonight Show? Watch it, here.
The Colson / R. George / T. George letter to Ugandan Christians
Thanks very much, Robby.
(Am I correct, Robby, that whereas your mentor John Finnis is "in principle" opposed to the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct, you are not? Does the amicus brief that you and Gerry Bradley--if memory serves--co-authored in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) bear on this question?)
Dear Robby, Dear Robby, ...
Let me hasten to add: I begin that way in the spirit
of John Prine’s wonderful “Dear Abby, Dear Abby”—with which I hope Robby, given
his admirable musical tastes, is happily familiar. No one has ever called
me Mikey, and I hope no one ever does. So please, dear Robby, no “Dear Mikey, Dear
Mikey”.
Robby begins his response to my post by saying “Sorry,
Michael, but I don’t see what you point is. Perhaps I’m being
obtuse.” But Robby is obviously not being serious in beginning that way: He
sees what my point is--as the rest of his post makes clear--but,
predictably, disagrees with my point.
The most brilliant elaboration and defense of the position
with which Robby associates himself in his post is my friend Chris Eberle’s
book, Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press,
2002), which I, along with Nick Wolsterstorff, urged Cambridge to publish, and
for which I—like Nick, and also like Robby’s Princeton colleague Jeff Stout—provided
a dust jacket blurb, saying that the book was the new gold standard in discussions of
religion in politics.
So, we have Chris and Robby (and, of course, others,
including Nick Wolterstorff) on one side of the issue, and I, along with Kent
Greenawalt and Andy Koppelman (and, of course, others, including, it seems,
Chip Lupu), on the other side. Reasonable scholars, all. As I
said in my post, the issues are contested; more importantly, they are contested
by reasonable scholars.
(As it happens, I was once on Robby’s side of the issue: Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003). “I was so much older then. I’m younger than that now.” Apologies, again, to Robert Zimmerman.)
In giving me, years ago, a sign that now hangs in my office at Emory, my dear wife Sarah O’Leary was being sarcastic at my expense. The sign says: “Be reasonable. Think like I do!” I take the point. Chris’s position is certainly a reasonable one, eminently reasonable—and, as I said, brilliantly defended in his book. Which is why I urged Cambridge to publish the book. I’ll leave it to others to decide whether the position I (along with Kent and Andy, among others) defend is a reasonable one too. If Robby, after reading my new book, thinks that that position—with which I know he won't agree—is not even reasonable, then, though he may not want it, I will FedEx him the sign my wife gave me.
(Alas, the magisterium sometimes cannot distinguish between disagreement and reasonable disagreement. This is why the magisterium foolishly insists--and insists contra the sensus fidelium--that all those who would be faithful--faith-full, full of faith--Catholics should affirm the magisterial position on contraception. John Noonan: Why can't you just see the light??!!!)
In any event, the strategy I had in mind in making the post to which
Robby has now responded, worked. IT WORKED! What strategy? My unashamedly devious--and desperate--strategy for getting someone other than a university library to purchase a copy
of my new, $80 book. Thanks so much, Robby. I hope you won’t change
your mind and simply ask the Princeton library to purchase a copy.
A Proposed Neutrality-Guaranteeing Addition to Stupak/Nelson, with Thanks
Many thanks to Rick for his thoughtful reflections on abortion-neutrality in the matter of health insurance reform legislation. Rick is quite right that my sympathies are in keeping with his concerning whether abortion-neutrality ought be considered an 'end-game.' I certainly don't mean to suggest that it ought. There is of course very much to be said on this subject -- in particular, about how difficult I know it can be to be neutral for one limited purpose (getting an independently compelling piece of legislation passed), while being non-neutral more generally on the very same subject. (Compartmentalizing ain't easy!) Yet I have to be very brief at the moment (couple of chores shrieking at me even now!), so let me take this occasion just to propose one very simple addition to Stupak/Nelson, or to the reform legislation with Stupak/Nelson attached, that I think might make it altogether impossible to argue any longer that they are not abortion-neutral:
To situate my proposal, note that the principal argument against Stupak/Nelson's neutrality, as I understand it, is that it would prohibit those who receive federal assistance from purchasing health insurance policies that cover abortion, and that no company now finds it convenient or economical to offer separate policy-tracks one of which includes and the other of which excludes abortion coverage. Since no insurer finds it convenient or economical to 'unbundle' abortion from other covered procedures, the argument continues, insurers won't voluntarily do that unbundling -- at least not for the benefit of those comparatively few people who would receive federal assistance. And so one of two things will happen: One possibility is that, since those comparatively few who seek federal assistance lack bargaining power relative to the insurers, they'll simply be, in effect, prevented from receiving federal assistance should Stupak/Nelson be put into place. The other possibility is that the insurers simply stop offering abortion coverage to anyone. That means we're faced, if we independently favor getting insurance reform legislation passed, with a Hobson's choice between either non-coverage for precisely those now lacking coverage whom the reform legislation aims to help, or ally-losing non-neutrality in the form of abortion coverage's no longer being available to people to whom it's available now.
If this is correct, then it seems to me there is an easy, two-part solution:
First, per suggestions I've made here before, repeal McCarran-Ferguson, which prevents Congress from regulating the insurance industry and insulates that industry from antitrust laws, altogether. That is, permit direct federal regulation of the insurance industry just as we federally regulate all other financial intermediaries -- banks, investment compaines, securities firms, etc. Repeal of the anachronism that is McC-F is warranted separately, of course, for reasons I have adduced in earlier posts here on the health insurance reform bills. But here we have yet another reason.
It seems to me that this sort of change might be easy to add to the legislation, and that were it added, nobody could plausibly claim that it's non-neutral either doctrinally speaking or practically speaking.
What think you all?
While I am at it here, let me please thank Carter Snead, a brilliant and deeply morally inspiring colleague of Rick's (like Rick himself!) and old friend of mine, who has very much sharpened my thinking on this and related subjects over the years since our 10th Circuit clerkship days a ... oh heavens! ... decade ago. He's not to be blamed for any screw-up in this proposal, since it's only just occurred to me in response to a challenge Carter put to me in response to my earlier post; but he is certainly to be credited with having occasioned my lighting upon this as a perhaps plausible start.
All best,
Bob
Abortion "neutrality" and healthcare-funding legislation
In recent posts here on MOJ, one question that has been discussed is whether the Stupak & Nelson amendments are "abortion neutral." Putting aside (for now) interesting conversations we could have about what, exactly, it means for a particular piece of legislation or a particular funding program to be "neutral" -- with respect to abortion or anything else -- I wanted to register, for what it's worth, my view that the possibility that these amendments are *not* "abortion neutral" -- that is, the possibility that they result in a *reduction* in the amount of federal funds for abortions, or in the financial and other incentives that law and policy create to procure abortions -- would certainly not be a reason to oppose the amendments, nor would it be a reason not to insist that professedly pro-life legislators (Republicans and Democrats) support the amendments.
I take Bob's point that a pro-life legislator who otherwise supports the Democrats' healthcare-funding proposals (and, certainly, a pro-life legislator need not support these proposals) could conclude that it is not necessary to filibuster those proposals if the proposals are, in fact, "abortion neutral" (whatever that means). But, I also think (and I imagine that Bob agrees with me) that a pro-life legislator ought not to regard "abortion neutrality" as the end-game of (let alone a constraint on) his or her efforts.
A law or policy could be non-neutral with respect to abortion -- in the wrong way, i.e., in the sense that it undermines the cause of protecting unborn children -- even if it does not directly fund abortions. The practice of abortion in this country is embedded in a legal regime that is "bigger" than just funding questions. And, a healthcare-funding proposal could shore up that regime, it seems to me, without allocating directly more money to paying for abortions.
One of the things I like about Stupak / Nelson is -- wholly and apart from the question whether they are, in fact, "neutral" with respect to "how much public funds go to abortion" -- is that they point the law's pedogogy in a pro-life (non-"neutral") way. They "send a message" that abortion is not worthy of funding. It is good that such a message be send.
UPDATE: The USCCB thinks that the Nelson Amendment is abortion "neutral".
Notre Dame Task Force on Latinos and Catholic Schools: "To Nurture the Soul of a Nation"
MOJ readers might remember that, a few years ago, Notre Dame's President, Fr. John Jenkins, commissioned a Task Force to study and respond to some of the challenges facing Catholic schools. That group produced a report called “Making God Known, Loved, and Served”, http://ace.nd.edu/assets/2296/tf_cover.pdf, and a number of interesting, concrete developments have come out of that Task Force’s work.
More recently, Fr. Jenkins asked the Notre Dame Task Force on the Participation of Latino Children and Families in Catholic Schools to study, in a particular way, the participation of Latinos in America’s Catholic schools. In conjunction with the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, that Task Force has released a report called “To Nurture the Soul of a Nation: Latino Families, Catholic Schools, and Educational Opportunity.” More information is available here: http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/14167
This latter report should be available on Notre Dame’s website very soon. I’ve read the hard-copy, though, and I think you’ll find that it’s very exciting and inspiring for all of us who care about Catholic education.
Thanks to Mark Sticherz & John Breen, with One Caveat
Many thanks to John Breen for posting Mark Stricherz's reply to my defenses of Senator Casey. It is gratifying to have agreement on the fundamental proposition that Senator Casey's motives did not deserve to be impugned.
I do wish to correct a misimpression, however, that might be encouraged by Mr. Stricherz's reply, particularly given that the same misimpression seems to me to have been implicit in his original post. That is the suggestion that, in refraining from threatening to filibuster the Senate bill unless it include the Nelson amendment, one must be either supportive of, or indifferent to, federal funding for abortion.
As noted in my first post defending Senator Casey, there appears to be a consensus now among most pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike that the Stupak amendment to the House bill, and a fortiori the proposed Nelson amendment to the Senate bill, were not abortion-neutral. That is to say, these amendments did not merely prevent the previous equilibrium-cum-stalemate from tipping in the direction of increasing the incidence of abortion, but in fact affirmatively tipped it the other way, a circumstance that was virtually guaranteed to fragment the coalition that had gathered, from multiple directions, in favor of a badly needed and independently morally compelling health insurance reform bill.
How ever desirable the end promised by Stupak/Nelson would be in its own right from the pont of view of advocates of the unborn, insofar as it threatened to prevent passage of an independently morally compelling end by dint of its violation of the abortion-neutrality principle that had thitherto guided the crafting of the legislation, there could certainly be principled grounds for not threatening to filibuster the proposed legislation unless it included the Nelson amendment. There could even be principled grounds for advocates of the unborn to oppose the amendments themselves. For, provided that a veritably abortion-neutral amendment can in fact be crafted -- one that leaves the current regime of no federal funding for abortions in place without change in either direction -- there will be an alterntive to Stupak/Nelson that all can indeed demand without violating the neutrality principle. If there is in fact such an alternative and Senator Casey does not support it, then perhap people will have some prima facie reason to be disillusioned. At present, however, there seems to me to be no such reason.
I suggest, then, that the real question we ought to be addressing, in considering what the best principled course of action for Senator Casey and others might be, is whether in fact some such neutral amendment can indeed be crafted. Can it?
Many thanks,
Bob
Uganda (with thanks to Michael P.)
Readers of MoJ know that Michael Perry and I don't always see eye to eye, especially on matters of sexual morality. However, a couple of weeks ago Michael brought to our attention a piece of legislation now pending in Uganda that would impose outrageously harsh punishments for homosexual conduct, and rightly noted that Catholic leaders in Uganda who have so far been silent about this legislation have a responsibility to speak against it. In recent years, I have had the opportunity to build relationships with both Catholic and Anglican leaders in Uganda and other African nations. The same is true for my friends Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries and Timothy George, a distinguished Southern Baptist theologian and Dean of the Beeson Divinity School at Samford University. I shared Michael's information with Chuck and Timothy and we agreed that we, too, have a responsibility to speak. I will reproduce below a letter we have sent to Ugandan Christian leaders of all traditions. We have also written to His Holiness Pope Benedict respectfully but urgently requesting that Catholic leaders in Uganda be encouraged to speak strongly and clearly against the pending legislation. I hope our efforts will help in preventing it from being enacted. Chuck and Timothy join me in thanking Michael for calling this to our attention and the attention of other MoJ readers, and stressing the obligation to speak.
-----------------------------------
Beloved Christian Brothers and Sisters of
We greet you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and embrace you in the spirit of his love. As we seek to follow his path, we are inspired by your fidelity to the Gospel and by the example you provide the world of courageous discipleship.
We especially commend your witness to the timeless moral truths that are of the essence of man’s dignity as a creature fashioned by God in his own image and likeness. In the West, many of these truths are under severe attack from those who believe them to be unwarranted impositions on the freedom of the individual to seek his own satisfactions and fulfillment in his own way. Nowhere is this clearer than in the domain of sexual morality, where actions condemned by divine authority and natural law as contrary to the dignity of the human person are celebrated as expressions of individual autonomy and even personal identity.
We know that it is with dismay that you have observed these attacks and with them a cultural erosion of moral understanding, and we are grateful to you for standing in solidarity with us as we have sought to bear witness to the truths of the Gospel and the dignity of man. We especially appreciate your support for our work to protect and defend marriage as the life-long, exclusive, and faithful covenant uniting husband and wife.
Brothers and Sisters, we approach you today about a development in your country that is a source of grave concern for us. We have learned that a bill has been introduced in your parliament that would penalize even a single act of homosexual conduct with life in prison. Repeated homosexual acts and certain other specified behaviors would be punishable by death. The harshness of these proposals is, we believe, inconsistent with a Christian spirit of love and mercy. We urge our brothers and sisters in
In a spirit of Christ-like love, let us recall that many men and women who experience same-sex attraction struggle to live chaste and holy lives. Many succeed; yet many sometimes falter. Is the same not true of all of us? We are all tempted by the lure of sin, be it in the domain of sexuality or in other areas of our lives. And none of us is perfect in resisting temptation. All of us from time to time fall short of fulfilling God’s intention for us, and we therefore stand in need of the Lord’s mercy and forgiveness. Surely, no one guilty of a single act of homosexual conduct (or fornication, adultery, or other sexual offense) should spend the remainder of his life in prison as a consequence of his sin. Such harshness, such lack of mercy, is manifestly contrary to the example of our Lord and cannot be given the support of those who seek to follow Christ. In response to a proposal to punish consensual sexual crimes with such extreme penalties the Christian must surely echo the words of Jesus: “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.”
We recognize that the scourge of AIDS has been devastating to the people of
Brothers and sisters, we do not reproach you or hold ourselves out as your teachers. In so many ways today, you are our teachers. We recognize that in view of the moral crisis of the West, we are scarcely in a position to lecture to people in
Yours faithfully,
Charles W. Colson
Founder, Prison Fellowship &the
Dr. Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence,
Dr. Timothy George
Dean and Professor of Divinity,
Profiles in the Reality of Courage: Stricherz Responds to Hockett
The following is MOJ friend Mark Stricherz's reply to Bob Hockett's posts on Senator Casey:
In his defense of Senator Casey, Professor Hockett makes a few good points. My post for TrueSlant should have commended the Senator for voting for Nelson's anti-abortion amendment; and it should not have attributed the Senator's failure to withdraw support for the health care bill solely to his likely concern about voters in the Philadelphia suburbs. But Professor Hockett's political critique does not strike me as convincing. Whatever else might be said of it, it does not reflect reality in Congress or the country.
Casey's vote for Nelson's amendment did not take "something like an awful lot of courage," as Professor Hockett writes. It took little more than listening to the people. Just look at the polling on this issue. According to a CNN poll released in mid-November, more than six in 10 Americans oppose using public money for abortion for women who can not afford the procedure; and fewer than 4 in 10 support it. In Casey's home state of Pennsylvania, which is one of the two or three most pro-life states in the country, opposition to government funding of abortion is likely stronger.
Casey's vote for Nelson's amendment was all but meaningless. The amendment was simply not going to pass on its own. Casey's only leverage is to threaten to hold up the bill. If Stupak's supporters had announced they would support the health-care bill regardless of abortion funding, they would not have gotten a vote on his amendment.
Withholding support for a health care bill will not stop health care reform in its tracks. It means that, if the bill cannot get 60 votes, the abortion funding will be removed, because the Democrats want to pass a health care bill. So Casey's actions would affect only one thing: abortion funding.
Senator Casey is pro-life. But so far on this issue, he is a pro-life follower, not a leader; a Bob Casey, Jr., not a Bob Casey, Sr.; a backbencher who won't draw a line in the sand and buck the party's top officeholders. He hasn't even done it on a "foundational issue" that Professor Hockett rightly identifies as such.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
