I am as critical of Roe v. Wade as anyone who blogs at MOJ. See, e.g., Michael J. Perry, Constitutional Rights, Moral Controversy, and the Supreme Court 131-167 (Cambridge, 2009). But that Roe was--and remains--a bad constitutional decision and should be overruled does not entail that in our society, all things considered, pre-viability abortions should be criminalized. See Michael J. Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law, Courts 59-64 (Cambridge, 2007).
In any event, no one who blogs at MOJ is more theologically informed or astute than, say, David Hollenbach, S.J., who signs the petition below.
26 Catholic Leaders, Scholars and Theologians Offer Support for Sebelius
Posted Sun, 03/01/2009 - 18:38
Bipartisan group reiterates the Catholic faith’s support for universal health care for all Americans
Today, 26 Catholic leaders, scholars and theologians publicly
expressed support for the nomination of Governor Sebelius as the next
HHS secretary. The statement calls attention to Sebelius successful
efforts at reducing abortion in Kansas as well as the Catholic faith’s
long standing support for universal health care:
As faithful Catholics we proudly offer our support to Governor
Kathleen Sebelius, who has been nominated to head the Department of
Health and Human Services. Governor Sebelius is a woman of deep faith with a proud family
history of public service. We believe Governor Sebelius’ record of
building the common good, reforming immigration laws, improving
schools, innovating health care solutions, and significantly reducing
the abortion rate in Kansas, makes her an excellent candidate for HHS
Secretary.
Governor Sebelius has demonstrated civility and a new kind of
politics that both earned her the respect and collaboration of
Republican allies and delivered results for the citizens of Kansas. In
addition to offering our support, we also reject the tactics of those
who would use Gov. Sebelius’ faith to attack her. As Catholics, we find
such partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive.
What are the facts? Kathleen Sebelius has made clear that she agrees
with church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted
according to that belief. As governor she has worked to reduce the
number of abortions by supporting expanded prenatal care and adoption
incentives, expanding health services for Kansas families, and
providing a variety of support services for families.
Among other actions, Governor Sebelius:
- signed the Senator Stan Clark Pregnancy Maintenance Initiative
Program, a bill which funded support services for pregnant women and
alternatives to abortion;
- signed Alexa’s Law, to deal with certain crimes against unborn
children, which defines an unborn child as a fetus at any state of
gestation from fertilization to birth. As a result, if a pregnant woman
was murdered, the offender could be charged with the murder of the
unborn child as well;
- signed a law doubling the adoption tax credit and oversaw an
expansion of adoption support spending in Kansas from $17,566,288 in
2003 to a projected $23,279,623 in 2008; and
- oversaw a decline in teen pregnancies between 2002 and 2007
Indeed, because of Governor Sebelius' efforts, abortions in Kansas have declined by 10% during her time as governor.
The governor has had disagreements over public policy with leaders
in her Church. Yet their disagreement has never been over the morality
of abortion, but over what prudential policy is best in dealing with
abortion in Kansas. In the United States, it is the legitimate role of
government officials to make the prudential decisions about how to
implement moral principles in the public square.
Attention to a range of urgent issues is required in order to build
a consistent culture of life. As the U.S. bishops said in their 2007
“Faithful Citizenship,”
Affordable and accessible health care is an essential safeguard of
human life and a fundamental human right. With an estimated 47 million
Americans lacking health care coverage, it is also an urgent national
priority. Reform of the nation's health care system needs to be rooted
in values that respect human dignity, protect human life, and meet the
needs of the poor and uninsured, especially born and unborn children,
pregnant women, immigrants, and other vulnerable populations.
We hope that all Americans will join Governor Sebelius in making
this vision a reality. And we hope that people of all faiths will join
us in offering our prayers for Governor Sebelius as she prepares to
undertake this new leadership role.
Ambassador Elizabeth Frawley Bagley
Professor Lisa Sowle Cahill
Nicholas Cafardi
William D’Antonio
Professor Miguel H. Diaz
Michael Duffy
Julia Dowd
Professor Joseph Fahey
Professor Richard Gaillardetz
Fr. David Hollenbach
James P. Joseph
Christopher Korzen
Steven Krueger
Professor Douglas Kmiec
Delores Leckey
Eric LeCompte
Kari J. Lundgren
Professor Jerome Maryon
Fr. Thomas Massaro
Professor Vincent Miller
Professor David O’Brien
Fr. Thomas Reese
Maria Riley
Professor Stephen Schneck
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels
Dr. Patrick Whelan
Like others, I am learning more about Governor Sibelius's position on many issues. I do find it instructive that NARAL Pro-Choice states on its website that the Governor is identified as "pro-choice" but both houses of the Kansas state legislature are identified as "anti-choice." As I see it, to be pro-choice means that you may not pursue an abortion for yourself, but then you might; but you assuredly will allow someone else to have an abortion if she so chooses. When the gloss is stripped and we are down to fundamentals, to be pro-choice means to favor Roe v. Wade and its progeny which gives any woman a "constitutional right" to have an abortion if she so chooses.
RJA sj
Like Steve, I'm not sure I agree with Michael that uniting, rather than further dividing, the nation should necessarily motivate the choice of HHS secretary. If President Obama had nominated a strong pro-life figure, the fact that many of my fellow Americans disagree with the nominee's views would not, standing alone, lead me to oppose the nomination. I don't know a whole lot about Gov. Sebelius, but my concern about her nomination stems from my disagreement with her views, not from the fact that many Americans also disagree with her views. For those interested, here's a statement of support for the nomination from some prominent Catholics, including Doug Kmiec, Fr. David Hollenbach, Fr. Thomas Reese, and Margaret O'Brien Steinfels.
Michael Scaperlanda asks: "Can Catholics - whether we voted for Obama or not - come together
and agree that President Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius is an
extremely poor choice; one that is likely to further divide the nation
rather than bring us together?"
I think this question underestimates the diversity of Catholics, assumes that division of the nation on issues is a bad thing (it strikes me that a unified view may be evidence of stagnation) and may wrongly inflate the possibility of national unity (in Obama like fashion - will 2012 bring an Obama-Scaperlanda ticket now that they have struck this important note of agreement on the possibility of national unity?).
I say this without any view of the wisdom of the Sebelius appointment.
The Acton Institute's Rome office put on a good conference recently on state financing for Catholic schools (and did an excellent job, I must add, providing hospitality for speakers). The issue is heating up again in Italy. Both Acton's own Dr. Sam Gregg and I gave papers emphasizing the complexity of the question and the fact that seeking state funding has the downside of inviting increased regulatory strings, a perspective perhaps more typical in American than European Catholic circles. Zenit reported on the conference and on Sam's paper:
[W]hat needs to be done to secure permissible state financing for Catholic schools while helping such institutions remain faithful to the magisterium? Gregg believes the whole issue needs to be rethought in ways consistent with magisterial teaching. He then presented two possible options. One would be for Catholic schools to opt out of public funding altogether. He believes that would show how much some schools are reliant on such funding rather than faithful support of other groups. It would also reduce bureaucracy and re-engage the laity on how to best educate their children.
A second option would be to shift from direct subsidies to a policy of tax breaks, whereby Catholic parents could nominate a particular school they would like their taxes to go to. That, argued Gregg, would create "major incentives" to educators to pay more attention to parental wishes rather than "the whims of state officials and politicians pushing politically correct agendas."
I presented my own position, which is that the increased ability in the U.S. (at least in theory) to access funding, permitted by recent cases like Zelman and Mitchell, is "a positive development, ... although a highly qualified one" because of the conditions that come with funding. "It is better that legal rules offer the funding option. [It's true that c]onditions on the funds can affect the schools’ integrity and mission. But so too ... can the financial disadvantage of being excluded from assistance that competing schools (and their students) receive."
The effect that financial pressures (intensified by a rule of no funding) can have on religious schools' integrity and mission was dramatized just before the conference by the announcement of a plan to "save" several distresased Catholic schools in New York City by turning them into public charter schools. As I put it, "The change would permit them to receive funds but would require them to eliminate their religious components entirely—not just in selected classes as [earlier] Supreme Court decisions [reading the Establishment Clause broadly] had required. That scarcely advances the cause of pluralism in education."
(See also this report from Vatican Radio.)
Monday, March 2, 2009
Our own Russ Powell has posted a new paper, Zakat: Drawing Insights for Legal Theory and Economic Policy from Islamic Jurisprudence. Here's the abstract:
The rapid development of complex income taxation and welfare systems in the 20th century may give the impression that progressive wealth redistribution systems are uniquely modern. However, religious systems provided similar mechanisms for addressing economic injustice and poverty alleviation centuries earlier. Zakat is the obligation of almsgiving and is the third pillar of Islam--a requirement for all believers. In the early development of the Islamic community, zakat was collected as a tax by the state and the funds were distributed to a defined set of needy groups. As a theoretical matter, there are three insights that make zakat an especially relevant subject for modern legal scholars. First, zakat is an example of a modest wealth tax combined with an income tax that may be illustrative in the discourse regarding wealth taxes. Second, the jurisprudence of zakat supports the ethical conclusions of scholars who contend that property rights are attached to post rather than pre-tax income. Third, to the extent that zakat is considered a principal source of revenue for public programs, it might imply a limited role for government, focusing on equitable distribution of goods. This paper begins with a thorough evaluation and synthesis of the traditional Islamic jurisprudence related to zakat. The next section identifies three broad approaches to zakat adopted by modern Muslim states, with particular emphasis on ways that zakat is institutionalized legally. This is followed by an empirical analysis of the correlation of the approaches to zakat with (1) individual income and (2) wealth stratification. The article concludes with observations and policy recommendations related to zakat and broader legal theory based on the earlier qualitative analysis and empirical findings.
I find this paper especially helpful since I've started including zakat in the economic justice segment of our "Foundations of Justice" course at St. Thomas. More broadly, though, I think that Islamic thought remains a relatively wide-open field for mining insights for the law-and-religion project and for articulating potential points of engagement with Catholic legal theory. Nice work, Russ!
Can Catholics - whether we voted for Obama or not - come together and agree that President Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius is an extremely poor choice; one that is likely to further divide the nation rather than bring us together?
