Just a quick response to Fr. Araujo: First, my post did not make this clear enough, but I do not believe that the difference between Fred Phelps' rhetoric and opposition to SSM is simply a matter of degree; I was not vouching for that position, I was just describing that position as a formidable obstacle to the Church's arguments against SSM. I reject that position, though I should have made it clearer. Second, in the Twin Cities, the news was filled with stories of gay teenagers' suicides at the same time the DVDs were making news. Whether or not certain bishops have made statements in the past on this issue againt bullying, I believe that it is important to make such statements when the public is focused on the issue, especially when the only mention of the Church's advocacy during that news cycle focused on the DVDs. On an issue that is this explosive, and on which the media is more inclined to report counter-cultural Catholic teachings, it is important to make the anti-bullying statements (and perhaps even support anti-bullying legislation?) over and over and over.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Response to Fr. Araujo
Friday, October 8, 2010
Who gets to be a feminist?
Slate has asked their favorite "lady luminaries" the provocative question, "Who gets to be a feminist?" You probably can guess where this is going, and Nora Ephron cuts right to it:
"I know that I'm supposed to write 500 words on this subject, but it seems much simpler: You can't call yourself a feminist if you don't believe in the right to abortion."
Thankfully, most of the views offered are more nuanced than Ephron's, but the nuance is more along the lines of "Who am I to judge?" rather than any deliberate recognition of feminism's potential harmony with a belief in the sanctity of life.
The Church's political advocacy, public perception, and SSM
This cartoon (from today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune) reflects the enormous problem facing the Church's effort to stop the inclusion of same-sex couples within civil law marriage. Increasingly, it seems, the public perception is that discrimination = discrimination = discrimination. Expressing the vilest sentiments about gays and lesbians is simply a difference in degree from excluding gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage. Part of this dynamic stems from our society's increasing embrace of individual liberty as an organizing principle, part of it, I'm sure, stems from a deliberate strategy by some SSM advocates to obfuscate potential distinctions between public policy stances affecting gays and lesbians, and part of it, in my view, stems from SSM opponents' failure to take the lead in advocating against social practices that we can all agree bring unjustifiable harm to gays and lesbians. Along with the DVD campaign, for example, Abp. Nienstedt could have publicly and prominently expressed his concern about the tragedy of recent suicides by gay teenagers, encouraged more vigilant efforts by school officials to police bullying, etc. Of course the Church has not been silent on the humanity of gays and lesbians, and relative silence should not ever be mistaken for approval, but in this climate, I think the Church needs to be speaking out early and often about affirming and defending the dignity of gays and lesbians if the distinction between anti-SSM and anti-gay is going to have any long-term traction.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Good news from Europe
The Council of Europe amended the proposed conscience resolution to include this key provision:
[N]o person and no hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion . . . .
(Thanks to Gerry Whyte for the pointer.)
Banning the burqa
Do natural rights attach to humanoids?
Science is poised to pose some challenging questions for our understanding of the human person; Catholic legal theorists also need to begin thinking about what science means for our understanding of the legal rights that attach (or do not attach) to the human person (or to a creation that looks awfully similar to the human person). Adam Serwer reports on the ACLU's exploration in this area.
UPDATE: Thanks to R. George Wright for forwarding his article, "Pale Cast of Thought: On the Legal Status of Sophisticated Androids."
The Reformer
Is the public square becoming more welcoming?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Conscience protection in Europe
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Church gets "political" in Minnesota
Minnesota Catholics are buzzing (at least in my parish) about the DVD sent out by Abp. Nienstedt last week to all Catholic households in the state advocating for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Aside from the ongoing debate about the substance of the Church's teaching on marriage and the priority placed on that teaching over other issues, as well as the Archbishop's characterization of the state's elected leaders as "ruling elites," there has also been criticism over the "political" nature of the mailing, coming just four weeks before election day. Though the marriage question is not on the ballot (Abp Nienstedt is arguing that it should be on the ballot), only one candidate for governor opposes SSM, while the other two support it. Whether or not the Church's position on a given issue is shared by lots of candidates, no candidates, or only a single candidate, issue advocacy cannot be transformed into candidate endorsement for purposes of the laws on tax-exempt status (though if I'm wrong on that, please tell me). I was puzzled, though, by this paraphrase of the Archbishop's response to criticism:
Nienstedt, who says he does not know how much the DVD campaign cost or who donated the funds, insists the DVD is not political but part of an ongoing effort to educate Minnesota Catholics about marriage.
Since this is not a direct quote, I'm not sure if the Archbishop actually said that the campaign is "not political" or if that was the reporter's characterization. Either way, the phrasing seems unnecessary and unhelpful to the conversation about the Church's role in public life. Of course the DVD campaign is political -- how could it not be? It may not be partisan, but we should be careful not to conflate "partisan" and "political." The Church's teaching has political implications, just as the Gospel has political implications. That's not a bad thing, and it's difficult to conceive of how it could be otherwise.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
