Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Evangelicals, Divorce, Same-Sex Marriage

Sightings  4/16/07

Evangelical Adaptations
-- Martin E. Marty


Since over one-fourth of U.S. citizens are listed in the demographic or sociological category "Evangelicals," we should spend at least one-fourth of our energies sighting accounts of them in the secular media, our chief zone of operations and spying.  Recent treatments stress some significant changes within the camp, changes which fair-minded observers should note before they generalize and stereotype.

Dr. David Instone-Brewer, an evangelical scholar who has written at book length on the subject, in the Wall Street Journal discusses reasons why evangelicals, who once spoke with horror and judgment against divorce and the divorced, are now blithely settling for possible presidential candidates who have divorced repeatedly.  Why the change?  Frankly, because "the divorce rate among evangelicals is actually as high as that of the general population."  In short, M.E.M. observes, "Everybody's doing it, so why preach against it?"  On such terms, many in this camp long ago gave up supporting "Sunday closing" laws and other instruments that helped keep them from violating one of the commandments.  Opposition to alcohol, which once led them to total support for tee-totaling, has softened now.  Et cetera.

We used to wonder about the selective literalism in moral judgments, noting inconsistencies on the evangelical front -- just as we notice them on every front.  Why today such vehement denunciations of homosexuality, about which the Jesus of the gospels is silent, and to which the Paul of the epistles devotes only a half-dozen lines -- while both Jesus and Paul were firm in opposing divorce when it then meant remarriage to someone whose former spouse is still alive?  How to wriggle out?  Saint W. C. Fields was a model: He said he'd been studying the scriptures many years, looking for a loophole.

It turns out that Dr. Instone-Brewer and two scholars he cites, Craig Keener at Duke University and William Heth at Taylor University, who earlier had written books affirming the traditional biblical anti-divorce stands, "now teach differently," as does Instone-Brewer, himself a convert to the revised cause and code.  "They conclude that Jesus and Paul would have rejected no-fault divorce and that they would have permitted a wronged partner to initiate a divorce based on the Old Testament grounds of adultery or neglect.  This new scholarship may allow evangelical leaders to say what they have wanted to say for some time -- that divorce is permitted so long as there are strong grounds for it."

Instone-Brewer reports that some other evangelical scholars go further: "abuse and abandonment are valid grounds," as one would hope, while others advocate a "covenant marriage" in which spouses agree not to divorce unless ....  James Dobson of Focus on the Family promotes this creatively wriggling approach.  But where evangelicals used to gulp when dealing with divorce and the divorced, now that they are "doing it," they are more generous.  Only "Mr. Giuliani, whose philandering apparently helped lead to both of his divorces" at the moment is still criticized.  If they are stuck with him as the potentially willing candidate, will they keep on opposing philandering?

The point of all this is to note: 1) evangelical diversities; 2) evangelical adaptation to the times; and 3) celebrations of affirmation of those who must divorce.  But questions remain.  For example, are not almost all divorces undertaken by partners who both say that "there are strong grounds for it"?  Don't count on evangelicals or anyone else to hold the line here if their candidates or they "do it."

What's the next barrier to fall?  Is this a slippery slope?

References:
David Instone-Brewer's article "Evangelical Separation Anxiety" appears in the Wall Street Journal (April 6, 2007), and can be read at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009907.  His book Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (InterVarsity Press) is an informed scholarly review of the arguments pro and con the new measures about divorce.

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

News "from Abroad"

This, from MOJ-friend (and Trinity College Dublin law prof) Gerry Whyte:

"During the week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a woman could not insist on the implantation of in vitro embryos where her former partner objected. The Court's press statement on this case may be read here and the full judgment  here.

In essence, the Court held, inter alia, that, in the absence of a consensus among European states about the status of the embryo, each country has a margin of appreciation within which to address this issue and that UK legislation on the point was not contrary to the Convention on Human Rights.

A case on identical facts is currently on appeal to the Irish Supreme Court, the High Court having held that the guarantee of the right to life in Article 40.3.3 of our Constitution applies only in the context of pregnancy and so not to in vitro embryos."

Friday, April 13, 2007

Maggie Gallagher on Rudy Giuliani

Rudy to pro-lifer: drop dead
By Maggie Gallagher
Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Thirty-eight percent for Rudy; 16 percent for McCain. On the surface, the latest Gallup Poll of GOP voters is great news for the Giuliani campaign. Mitt Romney scored just 6 percent, less than Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich (10 percent each) -- two guys who aren't even officially in the race.

But the apparent collapse of the McCain candidacy (it's early yet) may end up being a problem for Rudy. Deep distrust of McCain as the designated GOP front-runner has to some extent shielded Rudy Giuliani from the focused opposition of social conservatives.

Personally, I know I tried really hard to find a way to make the match work. But it takes two to tango, and Rudy's clearly not interested in meeting anyone -- not me, not most of his spouses, not his son -- halfway. Or a quarter of the way. In fact, being Rudy, he's not budging a step. All the deep-seated longing for rapprochement clearly runs in only one direction.

I'm not sure Rudy gets it: Big and strong is good, but only if it's used on our behalf and not against us. A big strong guy who just doesn't care what you think is scary, not reassuring. The same Rudy who cleaned up the mean streets of New York is the same Rudy who used his leadership abilities to dump his wife via a press conference and then tried to make the rest of us feel ashamed for caring about how he treats his family. It's the same Rudy who came out swinging to defend his new wife (whom he clearly loves) and left his son slowly twisting in the wind with dying hopes of some attention from his dad. That's the same Rudy who last week endorsed public funding of abortions as a constitutional right, thus killing two birds of hope with one stone.

In 1989, Rudy stated "there must be public funding of abortions" and criticized President George H.W. Bush for vetoing federal funding for abortions. Asked by CNN if this remains his position, he said: "Probably ... Generally, that's my view." When asked, "Would you support public funding for abortion?" Rudy answered, "If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes." Ultimately, he said that if it's a constitutional right, you have to provide public funding to make sure poor women can do it.

As the editors of National Review recently pointed out, this "makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense." No statements issued afterward by campaign spokespeople can undo the revelations of the way this candidate actually thinks and how he will govern.

Put the abortion issue aside for a moment, and think about what Giuliani has just revealed about how he thinks of the Constitution: If you believe in the First Amendment, does the government have to buy poor people printing presses? If you believe in the Second Amendment, must the taxpayers buy guns for poor folks? What kind of "strict constructionist" would say the government must pay for something if it is a constitutional right? For that matter, what kind of fiscal conservative would ever make such a claim?

Rudy Giuliani has now made it perfectly clear: Electing him for president (given a Democratic Congress) will likely mean taxpayer-funded abortions and Supreme Court justices with some truly odd and unreliable views of our Constitution. No pro-lifer in good conscience can vote for Rudy.

So what are people like me supposed to do? "I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me," Rudy said in South Carolina last week.

OK, Rudy, you got yourself a deal.

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Message to Rick Garnett: Casey, Yes; Giuliani, No

April 10, 2007

GIULIANI AND CASEY:
MAKING LIFE DECISIONS

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani’s recent statement on abortion, and Senator Bob Casey’s position on embryonic stem cell research:

“Catholics who accept the teachings of the Catholic Church on the life issues have every reason to be angry with Rudy Giuliani’s pledge to maintain taxpayer-funded abortions if elected president. His overall position on abortion is incoherent. He says he is now opposed to partial-birth abortion except to save the life of the mother, would appoint ‘strict constructionist’ judges and says he personally ‘hates’ abortion.

“Giuliani has no need to qualify his opposition to partial-birth abortion: the American Medical Association has determined that there is never a medical need for this type of abortion. Moreover, if he appoints the kinds of judges he says he will appoint, it is not likely they will uphold the wholly contrived right to abortion-on-demand. So why not simply say that Roe v. Wade invented a right that nowhere appears in the Constitution? And if he ‘hates’ abortion, what exactly is it that he hates about it? And why does he want to impose on the public the burden of paying for something that is constitutionally suspect and morally repugnant?

“When running for the senate seat in Pennsylvania, Casey would not commit on how he would vote on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Now he says he’s against it. This is good news. It makes it all the more difficult for him to later renege on his pro-life position on abortion, and thus should be welcomed by practicing Catholics in both parties.

“Catholics look to people like Giuliani and Casey to promote a culture of life. Giuliani’s mixed signals are in need of repair. Casey is off to a good start.” 

Friday, April 6, 2007

Recommended Reading

Greg Kalscheur, SJ, as many MOJ-readers know, is a former MOJ-blogger (and, of course, a present MOJ-friend).  This is Greg's latest.  Follow the "Full Text" link to download the paper.

"Catholics in Public Life: Judges, Legislators, and Voters"
Boston College Law School Research Paper No. 124

GREGORY A. KALSCHEUR, SJ
Boston College - Law School
Email:  [email protected]
Auth-Page:  http://ssrn.com/author=352803

Full Text:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=965600

ABSTRACT: Does the desire to avoid culpable cooperation in moral
evil make the conscientious Catholic judge unfit for judicial
service in a constitutional system that will inevitably bring
before the judge cases that implicate a host of issues as to
which the Church offers moral teaching? Confused answers to this
question reflect a larger confusion which often accompanies
contemporary discussion of questions related to Catholic
participation in public life. The confusion stems in large part
from a failure to recognize that Catholics participate in public
life in different ways that give them different sorts of public
roles. This Essay tries to bring clarity to the confusion by
focusing attention on one of those public roles, that of the
judge. The analytical framework for exploring possible conflicts
between the demands of the law and the demands of the judge's
conscience is provided by the principle of cooperation with evil.
Applying that traditional principle of moral theology, I conclude
that there are not likely to be many situations in which a
Catholic Supreme Court justice's fidelity to his or her
conscience might require the justice to refuse to fulfill their
judicial duties in a particular case. Indeed, it is more likely
to be trial court judges who will face the most difficult
questions of cooperation with moral evil.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Benedict and Karl

The Guardian
April 05 2007

Pope's book accuses rich nations of robbery
Benedict hails Marx's analysis of modern man; Publication planned for 80th birthday

John Hooper in Rome

Pope Benedict appeared to reach out to the anti-globalisation movement yesterday, attacking rich nations for having "plundered and sacked" Africa and other poor regions of the world.

An extract published from his first book since being elected pope highlighted the passionately anti-materialistic and anti-capitalist aspects of his thinking. Unexpectedly, the Pope also approvingly cited Karl Marx and his analysis of contemporary man as a victim of alienation.

The Pope's 400-page book, entitled Jesus of Nazareth, is to be published on April 16, his 80th birthday. Yesterday the newspaper Corriere della Sera, which is owned by the book's publishers, Rizzoli, presented a lengthy extract. It includes Benedict's thoughts on the parable of the Good Samaritan, who went to the aid of a traveller shunned by other passers-by after he had been stripped and beaten by robbers. While many commentators accuse the rich nations of not acting like the Samaritan, the Pope goes a big step further and compares them to the thieves.

"If we apply [the story] to the dimensions of globalised society we see how the peoples of Africa, who have been plundered and sacked, see us from close-up," he wrote. "Our style of life [and] the history in which we are involved has stripped them and continues to strip them."

The Pope wrote that the damage was not just material. "We have wounded them spiritually too," he said. "Instead of giving them God - and thereby welcoming in from their traditions all that is precious and great - we have brought them the cynicism of a world without God in which only power and profit count."

His judgment is bound to be seen as a condemnation of colonialism. But it could also be read as a confession of the failures of the Roman Catholic church's own missionary activity, which often followed in the wake of conquest and colonisation.

Pope Benedict went on to say that the poor of the developing world were not the only people who could be regarded as victims in need of help from a Good Samaritan. He said narcotics, people-trafficking and sex tourism had "stripped and tormented" many, leaving them "empty even in [a world of] material abundance".

Describing humanity's alienation, Marx had "provided a clear image of the man who has fallen victim to brigands". But the Pope said he had failed to get to the nub of the issue "because he only developed his thoughts in the material sphere".

The emptiness of modern life is a theme to which Benedict has warmed. He told a congregation at a Palm Sunday service that "earnings, success and career must not be the ultimate scope of life". He used the same sermon to warn of damnation for those who took backhanders in business or politics, saying that only those with hands not "soiled with corruption" could expect to reach God.

Here I am

In his post below, Rob writes that he is "fairly certain such people do exist"--that is, people who support gay marriage and also believe that

(1) marriage is not an outdated institution, (2) divorce should be made harder to get, (3) adultery should be discouraged and perhaps penalized in some fashion, (4) it is better for children to be born within marriage than without, (5) it is better for a committed couple to get married than to stay unmarried, (6) it is better for children to be raised by two parents rather than one, and so on.

You're right, Rob:  Such people do exist.  I am one.  So is my wife, Sarah.   We know many others.  David Blankenhorn has been in the trenches too long.

Sunday, April 1, 2007

Catholic, Gay, and Married?

Just for the record, my wife and I have two children.  Daniel is almost eighteen; Gabriel, almost sixteen.  Neither of them is gay--though one of Gabe's best friends is gay.

Now, what would *you* do if  Zach O'Connor were *your* son?  Tell him that he should be celibate for the rest of his life?  Who is Zach O'Connor?  Read on:

New York Times
April 1, 2007

Accepting Gay Identity, and Gaining Strength

By MICHAEL WINERIP

MADISON, Conn.

ONE month before Zach O’Connor, a seventh grader at Brown Middle School here, came out about being gay, he was in such turmoil that he stood up in homeroom and, in a voice everyone could hear, asked a girl out on a date. It was Valentine’s Day 2003, and Zach was 13.

“I was doing this to survive,” he says. “This is what other guys were doing, getting girlfriends. I should get one, too.”

He feared his parents knew the truth about him. He knew that his father had typed in a Google search starting with “g,” and several other recent “g” searches had popped up, including “gay.”

“They asked me, ‘Do you know what being gay is?’ ” he recalls. “They tried to explain there’s nothing wrong with it. I put my hands over my ears. I yelled: ‘I don’t want to hear it! I’m not, I’m not gay!’ ”

Cindy and Dan O’Connor were very worried about Zach. Though bright, he was doing poorly at school. At home, he would pick fights, slam doors, explode for no reason. They wondered how their two children could be so different; Matt, a year and a half younger, was easygoing and happy. Zach was miserable.

The O’Connors had hunches. Mr. O’Connor is a director of business development for American Express, Ms. O’Connor a senior vice president of a bank, and they have had gay colleagues, gay bosses, classmates who came out after college. From the time Zach was little, they knew he was not a run-of-the-mill boy. His friends were girls or timid boys.

“Zach had no interest in throwing a football,” Mr. O’Connor says. But their real worry was his anger, his unhappiness, his low self-esteem. “He’d say: ‘I’m not smart. I’m not like other kids,’ ” says Ms. O’Connor. The middle-school psychologist started seeing him daily.

The misery Zach caused was minor compared with the misery he felt. He says he knew he was different by kindergarten, but he had no name for it, so he would stay to himself. He tried sports, but, he says, “It didn’t work out well.” He couldn’t remember the rules. In fifth grade, when boys at recess were talking about girls they had crushes on, Zach did not have someone to name.

By sixth grade, he knew what “gay” meant, but didn’t associate it with himself. That year, he says: “I had a crush on one particular eighth-grade boy, a very straight jock. I knew whatever I was feeling I shouldn’t talk about it.” He considered himself a broken version of a human being. “I did think about suicide,” he says.

Then, for reasons he can’t wholly explain beyond pure desperation, a month after his Valentine “date” — “We never actually went out, just walked around school together” — in the midst of math class, he told a female friend. By day’s end it was all over school. The psychologist called him in. “I burst into tears,” he recalls. “I said, ‘Yes, it’s true.’ Every piece of depression came pouring out. It was such a mess.”

That night, when his mother got home from work, she stuck her head in his room to say hi. “I said, ‘Ma, I need to talk to you about something, I’m gay.’ She said, ‘O.K., anything else?’ ‘No, but I just told you I’m gay.’ ‘O.K., that’s fine, we still love you.’ I said, ‘That’s it?’ I was preparing for this really dramatic moment.”

Ms. O’Connor recalls, “He said, ‘Mom, aren’t you going to freak out?’ I said: ‘It’s up to you to decide who to love. I have your father, and you have to figure out what’s best for you.’ He said, ‘Don’t tell Dad.’ ”

“Of course I told him,”  Ms. O’Connor says.

“With all our faults,”   Mr. O’Connor says, “we’re in this together.”

Having a son come out so young was a lot of work for the parents. They found him a therapist who is gay 20 miles away in New Haven. The therapist helped them find a gay youth group, OutSpoken, a 50-minute drive away in Norwalk.

Dan Woog, a writer and longtime soccer coach at Staples High in Westport, helped found OutSpoken in 1993. He says for the first 10 years, the typical member was 17 to 22 years old. “They’d come in saying: ‘I’m gay. My life is over,’ ” Mr. Woog says. “One literally hyperventilated walking through the door.”

But in recent years, he says, the kids are 14 to 17 and more confident. “They say: ‘Hi, I’m gay. How do I meet people?’ ” 

For the first 10 years, Mr. Woog never saw a parent; meetings were from 4 to 6 p.m. Sunday, so members could get out of the house without arousing suspicion. Now, he says, parents often bring the child to the first meeting.

He believes teenagers are coming out sooner because the Internet makes them feel less isolated and they’re seeing positive role models in the media. Indeed, Zach says he spent his first therapy session talking about the gay characters on the TV show “Will and Grace” as a way to test the therapist’s attitudes before talking about himself.

Still, seventh grade was not easy. “We heard kids across the street yelling ‘homo’ as he waited for the school bus,” Mr. O’Connor says. Zach says classmates tossed pencils at him and constantly mocked him. “One kid followed me class to class calling me ‘faggot,’ ” he says. “After a month I turned and punched him in the face. He got quiet and walked away. I said, ‘You got beat up by a faggot.’ ”

The O’Connors say middle-school officials were terrific, and by eighth grade the tide turned. Zach was let out 15 minutes early and walked across the football field to Daniel Hand High School to attend the gay-straight club. Knowing who he was, he could envision a future and felt a sense of purpose. His grades went up. He had friends. For an assignment about heroes, a girl in his class wrote about him, and Zach used her paper to come out to his Aunt Kathy.

He still wasn’t athletic, but to the family’s surprise, coming out let out a beautiful voice. He won the middle school’s top vocal award.

His father took him to a gay-lesbian conference at Central Connecticut State in New Britain, and Zach was thrilled to see so many gay people in one place. His therapist took him to a Gay Bingo Night at St. Paul’s Church on the Green in Norwalk that raises money for AIDS   care.  Zach became a regular and within a few months was named Miss Congeniality.

“They crowned me with a tiara and sash, and I walked around the room waving,” he recalls. “I was still this shy 14-year-old in braces. I hadn’t reached my socialness yet, and everyone was cheering.

“I was the future. Most of the men were middle-aged or older, and to see this 14-year-old out, they loved it. They were so happy.”

Now, as a 17-year-old 11th grader, Zach has passed through phases that many gay men of previous generations didn’t get to until their 20s, 30s, even 40s. “Eighth grade was kind of his militant time,” Mr. O’Connor says.

“Everything was a rainbow,” says Ms. O’Connor.

These days, Zach is so busy, he rarely has time for the gay-straight club. He’s in several singing and drama groups and is taking an SAT prep course.

“I’ve been out so long, I don’t really need the club as a resource,” he says. “I’m not going to say I’m popular, but I’m friendly with nearly everybody. Sophomore year, my social life skyrocketed.”

In music groups he made male friends for the first time. “They weren’t afraid of me,” he says. “They like me.”

His brother, Matt, says sometimes kids come up to him and ask what it’s like to have a gay brother. “I say it’s normal to me, I don’t think of it anymore.”

As for his  parents, they’re   happy that Zach’s happy.

“Coming out was the best thing for him,” Ms. O’Connor says. “We ask him, ‘Why didn’t you come out in fifth grade?’ ”
________________________________________________________________________________________

Again, what would you do if Zach O'Connor were your son--tell him that he should be celibate for the rest of his life?

Read on:

National Catholic Reporter
March 23, 2007

Gay, Catholic and parents of three

By CHUCK COLBERT

Boston

The challenges of raising three children in the Maguire-Newman home are much the same as those faced in suburban America across the country. The Catholic household, two parents with three school-age children, springs to life at 7 a.m. on most days. While one parent makes breakfast and packs lunches, the other makes beds and monitors homework assignments.

"My observation is that children are a lot more receptive to work and instruction in the first 90 minutes before they have enough energy to be resistant," says Gregory Maguire, a celebrated author of children's literature. He is best known for the widely popular novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, a bestseller written for adults that has been adapted into a Tony Award-winning hit musical.

Maguire is quick to explain, "It's not because we want them to be superstars" nor do they have "serious learning problems." Rather, he said, it's a matter of "keeping up in a highly functioning school system in which we find ourselves."

All three children -- two boys and a girl, ages 5, 6 and 9 -- were adopted from countries in Latin America and Southeast Asia. They are by Maguire's account "noisy, smart and obedient within a range," having settled comfortably into an all-American way of life, with interests varying from ballet and piano to soccer and computer games. They are well-liked by their friends, Maguire said, adding, "We have yet to hear or face in nine years living in Concord any resistance to us as a gay couple with a family."

Maguire and his partner, artist Andy Newman, are not only a gay couple raising children, but they are legally married under a new law in Massachusetts, the only state with equal marriage rights for lesbians and gay men.

Maguire was scheduled speak about his story as a gay parent and a sacramental church at New Ways Ministry's Sixth National Symposium on Catholicism and Homosexuality March 16-18 in Minneapolis. New Ways Ministry describes itself as "a gay-positive ministry of advocacy and justice for lesbian and gay Catholics."

The Maguire and Newman clan is part of a changing landscape of contemporary American family life. More than 8,500 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since May 2004, including many with children. Nationwide, estimates of lesbian and gay parents range from 2 million to 8 million.

But a political battle to roll back civil-marriage rights for gays looms. Massachusetts state lawmakers have voted to send a proposed constitutional same-sex marriage ban to voters. If the legislature approves the measure again, this year or next, voters would have the final say in November 2008.

The local church has been an active player, with the Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley and other local bishops lobbying lawmakers to restore a traditional definition of marriage.

Maguire and Newman are doing their part to prevent that from happening. Last year they testified at legislative hearings against the ban. This year they will host a fundraiser for MassE quality.org, a statewide organization dedicated to protecting same-sex marriage. The couple has joined thousands of others across the state who have signed an online statement for Roman Catholics supporting the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples.

Despite pronouncements from Rome and Boston, Maguire, a cradle Catholic, remains devout. Newman is a convert. Together, they are instilling in their children the basics of Catholicism. All three have been christened. The oldest has received first Communion. The family begins every meal by saying grace. The children know the Our Father, Hail Mary and the rosary. A cross hangs by the front door. "We are a Catholic family," Maguire said. "We go to church on a regular basis, are respected in our parish, and are healthy contributors financially and morally."

In an interview with NCR, Maguire extended an invitation for Pope Benedict XVI to share a meal and meet the family. He would like the pope to see "we're teaching by example how we must take care of each other, love each other," he said. "That is the heart of the Christian message."

Locally, many gay Catholics, as well as supportive clergy, hope for dialogue. A group of more than 700 interfaith clergy, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, has asked for a meeting to discuss a civil marriage with O'Malley. The clergy wish to explain more fully a key distinction between civil and religious marriage and how a gay-marriage ban will discriminate against the religious liberties of gay people. But so far the chancery has not responded to the request.

"The hope is that the conversation occurs among the people in the pews," Maguire said. "If we can't get the message to the clergy that discrimination will not be tolerated, the people will go around" the leadership, and the "clergy will play catch-up."

A recent poll from Decision Research shows that a majority of Catholics in Massachusetts -- 53 percent -- favor same-sex civil marriage.

Raised in an orphanage by priests and nuns, as well as by a Catholic family, Maguire attended parochial schools in upstate New York. "The fact that I grew up as a Catholic, part of my system of thinking -- the grammar of how I frame the moral questions is Catholic grammar," Maguire said. "I have the great blessing and good fortune of finding myself during formative years in a very progressive church that was always eager to ask the next question rather than provide the next answer." And Maguire explained, "A parent's first obligation is to speak to his children with the most authentic language he has. For me, that is Catholicism."

His "intellectual and spiritual training" to "question, but not necessarily conclude," he considers a "birthright" and "inheritance."

"So I don't feel as much of a disjuncture as many people do," he said, "because when I sit in the pew and hear a letter from a bishop, or an injunction even from the pope about gay parents doing damage to children, I just say: Well, he has not asked the right question -- hasn't asked Andy and me, 'Why are you making so many sacrifices to take care of these orphans?' "

At New Ways Ministry's national symposium, Maguire plans to tell his story, leading a focused discussion on gay parenting in a sacramental church. "It means far less to them [his children] that they have two dads than two parents who are there when they go off to school and when they return," he said.

The tangible benefits and social status of marriage -- its legal, public and moral commitments -- also helps, Maguire explained. "We are able to say to our children honorably that we are married." Among all the differences they embody, "being brown-skinned, adopted and from foreign countries, at least they don't have to deal with that difference. Their parents are as married as any others."

Nonetheless, remaining in the church, Maguire acknowledges, is a struggle. "I run the great risk of being misunderstood or dismissed," he said. A declaration from the Vatican in 2003 that gay parents do "violence" by raising children caused us "grave distress," Maguire added.

But he explained, to "leave the church over what it's saying, I would have to pluck out my eyes because I don't like what I am seeing." For Maguire, that action would be tantamount to spiritual suicide, he said. "I would far rather be brave and sit in the pew" and "with a fair amount of respect, be the Rosa Parks of the situation. I am not moving. I didn't move before, and I'm not moving now. I am going to be buried from this church."

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Income Inequality, Revisited

I've been on the road for the better part of the last three weeks.  I don't think anyone at MOJ has yet blogged on this:

New York Times

March 29, 2007

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California,  Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability.

“If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” Professor Saez said. “It can have important political consequences.”

[To read the whole article, click here.]

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

COMMONWEAL Speaks

March 23, 2007 / Volume  CXXXIV, Number 6

EDITORIAL

Disarray

The Editors


Beleaguered is the polite word now most often used to describe the Bush administration. Yet making sense of the administration’s failures requires stronger language. As the events and revelations of the last few weeks remind us, almost nothing this administration does works and almost nothing it says adds up.

What is one to make of the deplorable treatment of wounded and damaged Iraq war veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center? How could an administration that endlessly boasts of its “support for the troops” allow those who have paid the highest price for this unnecessary war to be neglected in this way? Evidently, similar problems pervade the military health-care system. Veterans Administration hospitals, which under the Clinton administration were models of what good government stewardship could accomplish, are now also in disarray. Like everything else associated with the Iraq debacle, the military medical system was simply not equipped to deal with the unintended consequences of the war, namely the tens of thousands of severely traumatized soldiers who will require decades of care. Some generals have been fired, and a bipartisan commission has been established to investigate the scandal, but this should not distract attention from the fact that the buck stops in the White House.

A rare moment of accountability occurred in the conviction of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Libby lied to FBI agents and to a grand jury investigating the administration’s efforts to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration’s unfounded claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The legal issues of the case, which initially involved an investigation into the “outing” of Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent, were far from clear, and Wilson himself is no paragon of truthfulness. What is undeniable, though, is that Libby lied about his role in the administration’s feverish effort to smear an opponent of the war.

More evidence of the administration’s cavalier attitude toward the law came to light in the congressional testimony of six U.S. attorneys fired by the Department of Justice. The federal prosecutors complained of Republican political interference with investigations, and of threats of retaliation if they went public with their stories. Later in the same week it was revealed that the FBI has carried out unauthorized surveillance on thousands of U.S. citizens under predictably elastic applications of provisions of the Patriot Act.

If things are going badly at home, not much is going better in Baghdad, where the carnage continues virtually unabated. Holding his first news conference after assuming control of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus said the “surge” strategy will require more than the 21,500 troops already committed. It was then learned that President Bush had already dispatched nearly five thousand more troops. Petraeus also strongly hinted that the surge, which was presented to Congress and the nation as a temporary escalation, will be open-ended in duration. In other words, there will be no end to the war in Iraq on Bush’s watch, and therefore no need to face up to any ultimate failure.

Bush’s defenders complain that Democrats have no alternative strategy. On the contrary, several plausible proposals for gradual disengagement are being debated in Congress, all of which recognize, as General Petraeus himself has said, that there must be a political solution to the conflict. As columnist Jonathan Chait writes of Bush’s apologists, “Trust the commander in chief, don’t undermine the troops, withdrawal equals defeat, aren’t arguments to support Bush’s strategy. They’re generic pro-war arguments.” And that is all the administration has ever offered.

The heartwrenching stories from Walter Reed remind us that a very small number of Americans are paying a very high price for this open-ended war. Many soldiers are now being sent back to Iraq for the third time, while others are having their deployments extended. There has been remarkably little protest about this unjust and ruinous policy. If joining the armed services is the job these men and women chose, then they have to live with the consequences of that choice, or so goes the common wisdom. But war is not a “job” in any morally coherent sense. Even if service in the military is voluntary, placing the burden of the nation’s decision to go to war only on those who have chosen to serve is not right. Their choice does not absolve us of our responsibilities to treat them fairly. What was shameful about the abuse of the wounded at Walter Reed was easily understood. What is shameful about sending the same young men and women to fight again and again in Iraq should be too.