Mirror of Justice

David Skeel on Obama's Faith-Based Initiative Proposal

Skeel's comments, here, are well worth reading.

Obama? McCain? What's a Catholic to Do?

I just received the item below by e-mail--and thought that some MOJ readers, supporters of McCain as well as supporters of Obama, would be interested in seeing it ... BOTH for its content AND for what its content signifies about the controversy among us Catholics over who to support in the general election.

Dear Michael, The November elections are just around the corner, and as in years past the Catholic vote will be crucial in determining who our nation's next generation of leaders will be. The religious far right is already hard at work making its case that faithful Catholics must vote according to a narrow partisan agenda - an agenda that leaves little concern for war, poverty, the environment, health care, and a host of other essential life issues. That's why we're thrilled to announce the publication of A Nation for All: How the Catholic Vision of the Common Good Can Save America from the Politics of Division, by Catholics United director Chris Korzen and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good director Alexia Kelley. For a limited time, you can receive a copy of A Nation for All autographed by both Chris and Alexia with your $60 donation to Catholics United. For $100, we'll send you two copies. Click here to donate to Catholics United and receive your autographed copies of A Nation for All In A Nation for All, Chris and Alexia demonstrate how the values at the core of our faith - loving our neighbors, concern for the poor, and building a society that prioritizes the health and well-being of everyone, not just the few - can help put an end to the partisanship and acrimony that have prevented progress on the important issues of our day. A Nation for All is unique in that it directly challenges recent efforts by members of the far right and the Republican Party to coerce Catholics into supporting candidates who work against the common good. We show how the Catholic faith cannot be reduced to "litmus tests" or formulas designed to force the hands of Catholic voters, and confront the notion that denying Communion to candidates and voters is a legitimate and effective means of advancing the common good. Make a $60 or $100 donation today and receive your autographed copies of A Nation for All By making a $60 or $100 donation to Catholics United, you not only receive your own autographed books, you help support the important work that Catholics United will be doing in the coming months. In addition to serving as an effective counterbalance to the far right's own plans to advance an anti-common good agenda, we'll be reminding all people of faith that America works best when we work together. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, The Catholics United Team You are receiving this email because you signed up at www.catholics-united.org or because you signed the Catholics for an End to the War petition at www.catholicsforanend.org. click here to unsubscribe

Marriage Equality, Revisited

Over at The Immanent Frame, there is an interesting post this morning:  Promoting Marriage and Christianity in America.  To read the entire post, click here.  The author, Melanie Heath, "is assistant professor of sociology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Her forthcoming book, One Marriage Under God: Defense of Marriage Actions in Middle America, will be published by New York University Press."

Here are some excerpts:

Following the recent California Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, National Public Radio offered a report on “the coming storm” between two “titanic” legal principles: “equal treatment for same-sex couples” and “the freedom to exercise religious beliefs.” The report gave several examples of this “collision,” which opponents cite as proof that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty. The idea of an impending collision may overstate the intensity of impending legal conflicts, especially since cases of this nature have been fought for several decades following the emergence of laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and education for non-heterosexuals. Still, the current portrayal of this conflict does foreground the complex relationship of marriage, religion, and the state to promote one form of marriage (white, heterosexual, monogamous). It is same-sex marriage’s (and polygamy’s) challenge to this interrelationship that provokes such anxiety among religious conservatives.

Posts by Stephanie Coontz and Tey Meadow and Judith Stacey reveal the multilayered and complex history of marriage and Christianity in Europe and America, and its culmination in what Coontz remarks was an “untraditional” shift by the state to make marriage a privileged status that is attached to a large number of social and economic benefits (and constraints). In this vein, I will turn my attention to the less-known marriage promotion movement in the United States, in order to shed further light on how state and religion work together to define and protect the boundaries of marriage, and what this movement might mean for the future of marriage equality.

. . .

While religious conservatives balk at their loss of religious liberty under an increasingly wide array of antidiscrimination laws in relation to non-heterosexuals, it is significant that government marriage promotion policies combine religion and science to extend the privileged status of marriage to white, middle-class, heterosexual couples. This analysis speaks to the demands that social justice will require of the movement for marriage equality. Even as the battle against “separate but equal” recognition of same-sex couples gains legal footing, those fighting for marriage equality must take into consideration the consequences of the movement on other forms of social inequality. On the one hand, as states move in the direction of Massachusetts and California, it will become more difficult for government, politics, and religion to unite in an effort to promote heterosexual marriage as the superior family form. On the other, as Meadow and Stacey argue in their post, it does not offer justice to those outside the boundary of marriage who are barred from accessing its socioeconomic benefits, whether straight or gay. Thus, there are good reasons to expand the fight for marriage equality to consider the option offered in the California Supreme Court decision, for the state to eliminate the term “marriage” altogether and allow religious and secular communities to offer their own “definition.” This solution will not eliminate legal conflicts over antidiscrimination and religious liberty, but it might provide for a more just world.

"Can Obama Do It for Catholics?"

Interesting article in this week's The Tablet, here.

Catholics for Obama?

Many MOJ readers will be interested in this article:

COMMONWEAL
June 20, 2008

Yes You Can

Gerald J. Beyer

[Click here to read.]

COMMONWEAL on Same-Sex Marriage and the California Supreme Court's Decision

The entire editorial is here.  Here's an excerpt:

While the Catholic Church’s opposition to legalizing same-sex unions or marriage is unambiguous, the views among Catholics vary widely, with some surveys showing self-described Catholics to be more accepting of homosexuality than members of many other religious groups. The argument that extending the right to marry to same-sex couples will strengthen what is best and most loving in those relationships by encouraging fidelity, stability, and the care of children, and thus strengthen the community as a whole, is increasingly persuasive to many. Increasingly less persuasive to many Catholics and non-Catholics alike are the church’s condemnations of “intrinsically evil acts.” Clearly, the church must find better ways to bring its legitimate concerns about the erosion of traditional sexual morality and marriage into the public debate.

These are difficult issues, where people of good will often disagree, and where generational differences can be startling. Whether one favors or opposes civil unions or same-sex marriage-or favors one and not the other-the democratic nature of the debate makes prudential judgments unavoidable. As the church has long recognized, not everything that is immoral should be illegal. In many cases, prohibiting or criminalizing activities whose morality is deeply disputed is a mistake. In a democracy, people govern themselves. In that light, it is also a mistake for the courts to foreclose the relatively new public debate about same-sex marriage. Democratic cohesion is difficult to sustain when one side or the other feels its concerns have not been fairly heard. When it comes to how a society defines civil marriage, the voices of citizens, not judges, should be decisive.

The Dialogue That Didn't Happen

I don't think there's anything to be gained by rehearsing for MOJ readers my perspective on the to-and-fro that Mchael S. and I had this afternoon.  Michael S. has such a good heart.  I greatly admire Michael's work on immigration and his compassionate concern for immigrants.  But I reached the conclusion, this afternoon, that as a pair, Michael and I are probably not well suited to have a productive dialogue on human sexuality.  In any event, I know that I, at least, would almost certainly have nothing to say that hasn't already been better said by many others, including Sister Margaret Farley.

Some MOJ raders may be interested in this piece, which I published thirteen years ago:

Michael J. Perry, The Morality of Homosexual Conduct:  A Response to John Finnis, 9 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 41 (1995).

Response to Michael S.

Thanks, Michael, for the invitation.  At your suggestion lat year, I read Karol Wojtyla's book.  I found nothing in it I was inclined to disagree with--and nothing that a gay or lesbian couple couldn't embrace.  Doubtless I read too quickly.  What did I miss?  I--and perhaps some other MOJ readers--would appreciate some page references.  Thanks so much.

Alas, travel plans make December (and January) a bad time for me.  But depending on your response to this post, maybe we can begin right away.  Well, not right away.  I'll be away all of next week.  But soon thereafter. 

Gay Marriages Begin in California

"The weddings began in a handful of locations around the state at exactly 5:01 p.m. Pacific time, the first minute allowed by last month’s decision by the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. Many more ceremonies will be held on Tuesday when all 58 counties around the state will be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In San Francisco, Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, were the first and only couple to be wed here, saying their vows in the office of Mayor Gavin Newsom, before emerging to a throng of media and screaming well-wishers.

The gray-haired Ms. Martin and Ms. Leon, who have been together for than 50 years, seemed touched by, if a little tired of, all the attention.

'When we first got together, we weren’t thinking about getting married,' said Ms. Leon, before cutting a wedding cake. 'I think it’s a wonderful day.'

Outside City Hall, several hundred supporters and protesters chanted, cheered and jeered in equal measure, giving an unruly carnival feel to the scene, complete with a marching band playing wedding songs and signs reading 'Homo Sex Is Sin.'"

Read the rest, here.

Doug Kmiec Talks With Barack Obama

Here.

Answers for Michael S.

1.  Yes.

2.  No.  But the fact that heterosexual coupling is--or, at least, can be--"different in kind" does not entail that same-sex coupling is morally problematic.  See generally Margaret Farley, Just Love.

3.  Who said "SSM is analogous to interracial marriage"?  I didn't.  I said that a state's allowing for marriage, understood as a legal category, for same-sex couples is not more "statist" than its allowing for marriage, as a legal category, for interracial couples.

Capital Punishment, Child Rape, and Retribution: Where Do You Stand?

Religion & Ethics Newsweekly (PBS)
June 13, 2008

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: The Supreme Court ruled this week that all 270 foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo have the right under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in federal court. Another High Court decision excepted soon could expand the death penalty. Right now, 36 states permit capital punishment for murder. Should that penalty be extended to those who rape children? Criminologists say people are punished to prevent them from committing another crime, as a deterrent to others, to rehabilitate them and as retribution -- revenge. Does revenge for child rape justify execution? Tim O'Brien begins his report from New Orleans, and his story contains some material that may be disturbing.

VOICE OF FEMALE ANCHOR (ABC 26 News 1998 file footage): Today, safety shattered in a quiet neighborhood. A child raped. The teens who did it: on the run.

VOICE OF MALE ANCHOR (ABC 26 News 1998 file footage): An eight-year-old Girl Scout raped in her Harvey neighborhood is recovering from surgery tonight.

VOICE OF MALE REPORTER (ABC 26 News 1998 file footage): People who live in the Woodmere subdivision are hoping for peace of mind. The thought -- a rapist is on the loose...

TIM O'BRIEN: The brutal rape of a small child galvanized this normally tranquil community just outside New Orleans and horrified the neighbors.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: There's got to be some maniac running around out here.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I wouldn't have never thought that someone would live on my street and do something like this.

Sheriff HARRY LEE (Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, during 1998 press conference): I'm in my 18th year as sheriff and I've seen a lot of bad things happen, and this is probably the worst.

O'BRIEN: So bad that Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee put up $5,000 of his own money for information leading to an arrest. In addition to the psychological trauma, the eight-year old girl also suffered severe physical injuries. The city of New Orleans rallied to help, including the New Orleans Saints football team, which launched a fundraising drive to help defray the child's mounting medical expenses.

KAREN TOWNSEND (Reporter, ABC News 26, from 1998 file footage): Sheriff Lee says the prime suspects in this case are two black teens.

O'BRIEN: The manhunt became so intense sheriff's deputies began stopping all young black males in the neighborhood.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: They made me take my shirt off, and, you know, it's cold out here, you know?

VOICE OF FEMALE REPORTER: What were they looking for?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: Just tattoos, any little marks.

O'BRIEN: The victim had told police her attackers were two black teenagers. But the story fell apart, and suspicion began to shift to the child's stepfather, Patrick Kennedy, who had called co-workers on the morning of the rape seeking advice on how to remove blood from a white carpet. It turned out Kennedy also had been accused, although never convicted, of sexually molesting four foster children in his care. They were removed. His eight-year-old stepdaughter eventually said that it was Kennedy -- six-feet-four, 375 pounds -- who had raped her and then told her to blame it on the teenagers.

CHILD VICTIM :  First, he told me that he was going to make up a story and I better say it.   

O'BRIEN: And, she said, it wasn't the first time Kennedy had sexually molested her.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Did Patrick Kennedy do something to you just that one day, or did he did he do anything any other times? 

CHILD VICTIM : He did more than once. I think five (holds up five fingers). 

PROSECUTOR : More than once? You think five?   

CHILD VICTIM : Um-hmmm.

PROSECUTOR : Okay. Do you remember how old you were the very first time he did something? 

CHILD VICTIM : (shakes her head "no")

O'BRIEN: Three years earlier the Louisiana legislature overwhelmingly passed a law authorizing the death penalty for anyone who rapes a child under the age of 12. The jury agreed unanimously: Patrick Kennedy deserved nothing less. The law was introduced by then state representative Pete Schneider

(to Rep. Pete Schneider): Is this the kind of guy you had in mind when you passed this law?

Representative PETE SCHNEIDER (Former Louisiana State Representative): Absolutely. Someone who would brutally rape a child -- and rape is wrong no matter whom it is done to, but in a situation like this I believe the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for the crime.

O'BRIEN: Kennedy's court appointed lawyers disagree and have taken their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing if the death penalty for rape isn't cruel, it certainly is unusual, violating the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

BILLY SOTHERN (Capital Appeals Project): Mr. Kennedy is one of only two men on death row in the state of Louisiana for the crime of child rape. Indeed, Mr. Kennedy and this other individual are the only two men in the United States for the crime of child rape who've been sentenced to death.

O'BRIEN: The U.S. Supreme Court, more than 30-years ago, found the death penalty unconstitutional for rape -- that death is disproportionate to the crime.

BARBARA WALTERS (Anchor, ABC Evening News, from 1977 file footage): Good evening. Our top stories: The Supreme Court says the crime of rape should not be punishable by death.

O'BRIEN: But that case involved a 16-year-old married woman. Louisiana contends the rape of a child is much worse and that the Court's earlier opinion shouldn't apply when the victim is so young.

Rep. SCHNEIDER: Twenty-nine percent of the rape cases in this country -- and it's probably underreported -- are committed on 11-year-olds and younger. Twenty-nine percent! And they're horrendous crimes. You steal their childhood. You steal their soul. You hurt the world when you do something like that to a child.

O'BRIEN: We may never know to what extent, if any, the death penalty actually deters, but there's clearly another theory behind this Louisiana law. Call it revenge, or retribution, or a thirst for simple justice which, if left unfulfilled, may encourage others, loved ones, to go out and find it on their own. Sex offenders may be the least likely to be deterred, and their crimes are the most likely to bring retribution. Jeffrey Doucet: suspected of kidnapping and molesting an 11-year-old Baton Rouge boy. When sheriff's deputies brought Doucet back to Louisiana, the boy's father, Gary Plauche, was waiting at the Baton Rouge airport with a gun. Believing they could never get a conviction, prosecutors allowed Plauche to plead guilty to manslaughter with a suspended sentence. The state's attorney general, Buddy Caldwell, says it's the state that must exact the retribution, not loved ones, and that the Louisiana law makes it less likely they''ll try.

(to Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell): Even if it doesn't deter others -- that's an open debate. Bu even if it doesn't, you say the death penalty in cases like this is justified?

BUDDY CALDWELL (State Attorney General, Louisiana): I believe it absolutely is. 

O'BRIEN: Retribution alone is enough? 

Mr. CALDWELL : Retribution alone is enough. 

O'BRIEN: Some of your opposition, including the Catholic Church, will quote the Bible and say "vengeance is mine, so sayeth the Lord."

Mr. CALDWELL : Well, we see a lot of people that don't have a clue. But I think most people understand, even liberals have children that if they're raped and mutilated, like in a lot of these cases, they would be for the death penalty, whether they say so or not. It's always the other guy.

O'BRIEN: It's a retributive function of the law?

Mr. CALDWELL : I think so.

O'BRIEN: Ironically, a number of child advocacy groups are siding with the defendant in this case, telling the Supreme Court the death penalty for child molesters is counterproductive. Judy Benitez, who heads the Louisiana Foundation against Sexual Assault, says Louisiana's law may discourage children from coming forward and give the molester an incentive to kill his victim.

JUDY BENITEZ: If they're not facing any harsher punishment for killing the child and raping them, then they are for -- and I say this sort of facetiously -- for just raping them, you know, the state can't kill them but once. So what are they going to do? And this way they don't leave a living witness.

O'BRIEN: Patrick Kennedy's lawyer says if retribution is the goal, life in prison is retribution enough.

Mr. SOTHERN: The alternative punishment here in Louisiana for the crime of child rape is life without the possibility of parole at Angola penitentiary. It's "you die at Angola." So it's not like the alternative punishment for this is somehow lenient. The alternative punishment in this instance is extraordinarily harsh.

O'BRIEN: Both sides agree the law does make it easier for prosecutors to negotiate a plea agreement with the defendant for life in prison, sparing the child the trauma of having to testify at a trial. The question for the Supreme Court, however, is not whether this is a wise law or even a good law, or whether it even makes any sense at all, only whether it's such a bad law as to violate the standards of decency of a civilized nation as embodied in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Response to Tom Berg

In response to Tom (here):

My only point, Tom, was that it is no more "statist" for the state, acting against traditional cultural/social prejudices, to allow for same-sex marriage than it is for the state, acting against traditional social/cultural prejudices, to allow for interracial marriage.  I do agree that if the state does allow for same-sex marriage, it should not go further and compromise anyone's religious liberty to live out an oppositional stance in relation to same-sex marriage.

Interracial Marriage, Same-Sex Unions, and Statism

In the immediately preceding post, Rob writes:

Same-sex marriage, because it largely lacks the social, cultural, religious, and biological reinforcements, must rely more on legal reinforcements.  As I said, that is not, in my view, a compelling reason to oppose same-sex marriage, but it does warrant caution when evaluating state efforts to overcome social, cultural, religious, and biological obstacles to same-sex marriage that are not as formidable in the case of heterosexual marriage.

Consider the following, and imagine its being said circa 1967, when Loving v. Virginia was decided:

Interracial marriage, because it largely lacks the social, cultural, and religious reinforcements, must rely more on legal reinforcements.  As I said, that is not, in my view, a compelling reason to oppose interracial marriage, but it does warrant caution when evaluating state efforts to overcome social, cultural, and religious obstacles to interracial marriage that are not as formidable in the case of same-race marriage.

"Marriage" as pre-political?

In a recent post (here), Rob Vischer writes (quoting an article in the National Catholic Register):

"[H]ere's an insightful snippet about the the tendency of SSM to come with a more statist orientation than traditional marriage:  'Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. . . . .  By contrast, same-sex 'marriage' is completely a creation of the state."

In what I am about to say, by "marriage" I mean heterosexual marriage.

When one refers to a "right", one may be referring to a legal category (i.e., a legal right) or to a non-legal category (e.g., a moral right).  Similarly, when one refers to "marriage", one may be referring to a legal category or to a non-legal category.  "Marriage" as a legal category is obviously not pre-political, any more than "a right to ..." as a legal category is pre-political.  Whether the law should recognize and protect marriage, understood as a non-legal category--and thereby make marriage (also) a legal category--is a political decision.  Whether the law should recognize and protect same-sex unions, understood as a non-legal category--and thereby make same-sex unions (also) a legal category--is no more (and no less) a political decision than the decision whether to recognize and protect marriage, understood as a non-legal category.  So it isn't clear to me what Rob means when he says "the tendency of SSM to come with a more statist orientation than traditional marriage."

In any event, I take it that both Rob and I agree that one can simultaneously support the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions and oppose the state's abridging one's religious liberty to take up an oppositional stance to same-sex unions.  There are three choices, not just two:

1.  No to the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions.

2.  Yes to the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions, and no to the state's abridging one's religious liberty to take up an oppositional stance to same-sex unions.

3.  Yes to the state's extending the benefit of law to same-sex unions, and yes to the state's abridging one's religious liberty to take up an oppositional stance to same-sex unions.

Two Problems with Robert Miller's Statement

Thanks to Rob Vischer for linking us (here) to Robert Miller's statement (here), which I just read.

The fundamental problem with Professor Miller's statement is that it does not support the constitutional amendment it purports to support.  The constitutional amendment the statement purports to support would prevent the Pennsylvania legislature from recognizing--by extending the benefit of law to--same-sex unions, should the legislature want to do so, whether now or ten years from now.  Yet, Miller's statement is an argument in support of the proposition that a political majority, and not the courts, should decide whether to recognize same-sex unions.  The constitutional amendment Miller's statement purports to support would prevent a political majority in Pennsylvania, should it want to do so, say, ten years from now, from recognizing same-sex unions.  The constitutional amendment Miller's statement actually supports is different from the one it purports to support.  The constitutional amendment the statement actually supports is one that prevents the courts from requiring Pennsylvania to recognize same-sex unions.  Such an amendment would state simply that the Pennsylvania constitution shall not be construed by any court to require Pennsylvania to recognize same-sex unions.

Here is another problem with Miller's statement:  In the course of his statement, Miller says that a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the effect that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not require the Pennsylvania legislature to recognize same-sex unions "would for all practical purposes have roughly the same effect as . . . passing the amendment proposed in S.B. 1250."  That claim is plainly false.  The proposed amendment would prevent the Pennsylvania legislature from recognizing--should it want to do so, say, ten years from now--same-sex unions.  By contrast, a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the effect that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not require the Pennsylvania legislature to recognize same-sex unions would not prevent the  Pennsylvania legislature, now or later, from recognizing same-sex unions should it want to do so.   

Traditional Marriage ... from a Woman's Perspective

THE BOTTLE OF WINE

For all of us who are married, were married, wish

you were married, or wish you weren't married, this

is something to smile about the next time you see a

bottle of wine:


Sally was driving home from one of her business

trips in Northern Arizona when she saw an elderly 

Navajo woman walking on the side of the road.

As the trip was a long and quiet one, she stopped

the car and asked the Navajo woman if she would like a ride.

With a silent nod of thanks, the woman got into the car.

Resuming the journey, Sally tried in vain to make

a bit of small talk with the Navajo woman. The old

woman just sat silently, looking intently at 

everything she saw, studying every little detail,

until she noticed a brown bag on the seat next to Sally.

"What's  in the bag?" asked the old woman.   

Sally looked down at the brown bag and said, "It's

a bottle of wine. I got it for my husband."   

The Navajo woman was silent for another moment or two.

Then speaking with the quiet wisdom of an elder, she said:

"Good trade." 

Michael Scaperlanda: This Will Warm Your Heart!

[From John Allen's report, in today's NCR:]

In a recent NCR cover story I described a phenomenon in Texas I called "Evangelical transfer," meaning ways in which the state's strong Evangelical Protestant ethos shapes the Catholic experience.  This week, I want to describe another "evangelical" face of Texas Catholicism, this time in the sense of lives lived in radical witness to the values of the Gospel.

Meet Mark and Louise Zwick, founders of the Casa Juan Diego on Houston's West side, a remarkable center of welcome and advocacy on behalf of the city's mushrooming immigrant population.

In Catholic circles around the world, Mark and Louise Zwick are probably best known for the Houston Catholic Worker, a newspaper and labor of love in which they blend deep Catholic piety with keen social analysis. The paper is legendary for tweaking American Catholic neoconservatives, and anyone sucked into their orbit; in 2004, for example, the Zwicks lampooned the work of a certain Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, who, they felt, had been overly influenced by lunches in the Eternal City with prominent Catholic neo-cons. (In charity, they wrote at the time, they would refrain from saying that I was "out to lunch.")

On the streets of Houston, however, the Zwicks are famed not for literary production, but for love in action. One Wednesday morning in mid-February, Mark was showing me around the property when a mini-mob scene developed. A group of Hispanic men had clustered outside awaiting "Marco," and one by one they came forward to ask him, in polite Spanish, for various kinds of help. I watched as Mark found a jacket for one of the men to wear against the cold, a pair of shoes for another, and explained to a third how to get eyeglasses from Casa Juan Diego's free medical clinic.

Louise told me that this experience of living alongside the poorest of the poor, struggling daily to help meet their material and spiritual needs, fuels Casa Juan Diego's social advocacy.

[Read the rest of this remarkable, inspiring story, here.]

Newly Catholic Tony Blair ... and His "Faith Foundation"

[John Allen reports in today's NCR:]

In so many ways, Tony Blair is not your typical Anglican convert to the Catholic church.

For one thing, of course, Blair is the former British prime minister. Almost as atypical these days, however, is the fact that Blair does not belong to the traditionalist wing of Anglicanism, meaning Anglicans disenchanted with the ordination of women and homosexuals, the blessing of same-sex unions, and other liberalizing currents, and hence usually most likely to contemplate the "Roman option."

Instead, Blair espouses a theologically moderate, socially engaged Christianity. By the standards of British politics, Blair is a social moderate, and his largely permissive positions on abortion, birth control and embryonic stem cell research have drawn strong Catholic criticism over the years. (Some outraged English Catholics have gone so far as to charge that Blair should not have been received into communion with the church, at least until he recants.)

Last Friday, I attended a press conference at the Time-Warner Center in New York to present Blair's new "Faith Foundation," a global inter-faith coalition designed to mobilize religious leadership to achieve social good. Most immediately, the Faith Foundation intends to enlist religious believers in global efforts to eradicate malaria, estimated to kill one million people each year, primarily in the developing world, and the vast majority are children. A related aim is to combat extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of religious belief.

Interestingly, Blair's Faith Foundation counts a slew of prominent religious leaders among its advisors - Sir Jonathan Sacks, for example, Chief Rabbi of England, as well as Reverend Rick Warren, Senior Pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Yet there's not a single Catholic, though promotional materials say that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of England will join the advisory council after he steps down as Archbishop of Westminster.

To call Friday's press conference "high-profile" is an exercise in under-statement. It was hosted by CNN's Christiane Amanpour, and featured opening remarks from former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who said he had come to "wish my friend well." Richard Levin, President of Yale University, where Blair will be a visiting professor, was also on hand.

Eboo Patel, founder and director of the Interfaith Youth Core in Chicago and another advisor to Blair's Faith Foundation, provided the day's sound-bite.

"The worst mistake would be to think that the fault line of the 21st century runs between Christians and Muslims, or between theists and secularists," said Patel, a Muslim. "It's between pluralists and totalitarians."

That line was picked up by other speakers, so much so that it almost became an anthem - with Blair and his admirers clearly on the side of the pluralists.

Blair was careful to say that his foundation does not seek "to subsume different faiths into one universal faith of the lowest common denominator." Nevertheless, it seemed clear that Blair's Faith Foundation reflects what one might call a "center-left" religiosity, with emphasis on tolerance, dialogue, and cooperation in the pursuit of humanitarian objectives.

What future the foundation may have is tough to handicap. From a purely Catholic point of view, however, it's at least worth noting that the church's most high-profile recent convert also seems a natural spokesperson for a more "progressive" or "liberal" form of Catholicism, at a moment when that constituency appears to be, in many other ways, on the ropes.

You've Heard about the "Religious Right" ... But What about the "Religious Left"?

MOJ readers may be interested in this Pew Forum Q & A on "Assessing a More Prominent 'Religious Left'", here.

Call for Papers: Religion and Governance

Call for Papers

Sixth Baha’i Conference on Law

Exploring the Intersections of Religion and Governance

 October 10-11, 2008

American University, Washington College of Law

Washington, D.C.

 This Call for Papers invites submissions on the question of what contributions religion can make to governance (broadly defined as the traditions, institutions, and processes by which authority is exercised in a given society).

Under what conditions are religion or faith relevant to questions of “good governance”? Since the mid-1990s, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations, as well as developed country governments, have advocated good governance as a condition for development aid. Criteria for good governance have been variously said to include accountability, responsiveness, transparency, public participation, and the rule of law, among other elements.

Many have highlighted the roots of these concepts in Western democratic culture. One might recall, for example, James Madison’s widely quoted aphorism that “a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it … is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or both.” This Conference seeks to consider religious dimensions of these concepts. This may shed light on whether modern characterizations of “good governance” are uniquely Western, either in origin or present applicability.

More broadly, the Conference will ask what faith and religion can continue to teach us about good governance and its features. What do various religious traditions emphasize as the essential elements of good governance? From the perspective of the Baha’i Faith, for example, one might argue that processes of good governance must simultaneously pursue the interdependent principles of justice and unity, with an ultimate orientation to the achievement of universal peace. Along such lines, we hope to explore what ultimately is the role of “faith” in identifying and developing criteria for good governance.

Please send an abstract of your paper proposal via e-mail to Professor Padideh Ala’i at palai@wcl.american.edu, with a copy to Nicolas Mansour, at nmansour@wcl.american.edu, no later than June 30, 2008.

Conference Organizers:

 Padideh Ala’i (American University, Washington College of Law)

Robert B. Ahdieh (Emory Law School)

Neysun Mahboubi (Yale Law School)

Bill Stuntz on Obama's Nomination

[From the Stuntz/Skeel blog, Less Than the Least:]

Obama--Stuntz

I’m a registered Republican and will probably vote for McCain in November. Even so, yesterday seems to me one of the great days in American history. And it’s a great day in part because it all seems so ordinary: two candidates battled for a major-party nomination, and one of them came out on top, barely. That has happened before (mostly in Republican races—since, for most of its history, the Democratic Party required that its presidential nominees win two-thirds of all delegate votes, not a simple majority). But this time, the candidate who came out on top is a black man, and that hasn’t happened before.

I remember when Doug Wilder was inaugurated Virginia’s governor in January 1990: the first elected black governor in American history, inaugurated in the city that once served as the capital of a nation founded to preserve black slavery. Former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, scion of Richmond’s white establishment, administered the oath of office. When Wilder had taken that oath, Powell leaned into the microphone and said: “It’s a great day for Virginia.” It was. Just as yesterday was a great day for the United States.

Paul Baumann, Editor of Commonweal

Do yourself a favor:  Sit back, relax, and read Paul Baumann's wonderful article, here, in this weeks' Commonweal:

Among the Catholic Commentariat

Kmiec, Obama, and Communion

[This is from dotCommonweal.]

Catholic Civility

Dear Friends:

 

We are proud to announce the launch of our website, CatholicCivility.org (www.catholiccivility.org). As you know, putting civility back into the current debate about religion and public life is an issue that we feel strongly about. Please visit the website and tell your colleagues and friends about our commitment to a more civil tone to replace the divisive rhetoric and partisan attacks that define our national political debates. There will soon be a section where others can sign onto the statement as well. Again, please help us promote www.catholiccivility.org.

 

Thank you,

 

Amb. Thomas Melady and Timothy May Esq

Thomas P. Melady
Former Ambassador to
Burundi, Uganda, and the Holy See
President Emeritus Sacred Heart University
Professor and Senior Diplomat in Residence
Institute of World Politics
202-462-2101 ext 323
cell 202-297-5603

Are You Absolutely Outraged by the California Supreme Court's Decision on Gay Marriage?!

Well, Catholic news commentator Stephen Colbert is!  Listen to what he has to say.  (HT:  dotCommonweal.)

More Recommended Reading: What Is "Traditional" Marriage Anyway?

Hint:  According to a post today at The Immanent Frame, it's not what you probably think.

MOJ readers interested in the controversy over the legalization of same-sex unions should read this interesting post:  The Future of Marriage:  "Traditional" Marriage or a Break with Tradition? (here).

Recommended Reading

[Click on the title to download/print the paper.]

"Judicial Modesty and Abortion"

South Carolina Law Review, 2008

U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-18

TERESA STANTON COLLETT, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Email: tscollett@stthomas.edu

During his confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, then Judge John Roberts testified that he wanted to be a "modest" judge. By this, he appears to have meant a judge who strives to interpret the law as the lawmakers intended, and provides judicial answers only to the questions necessary to resolve the case before the court. The purpose of this article is to consider the implications of this conception of "judicial modesty" for the constitutional jurisprudence of abortion.

The first section of this article will consider whether the Constitution, by its terms, historical understanding, or previous judicial interpretation, required the Court to constitutionalize questions related to abortion. My conclusions compel me to join the legions of legal scholars who have sharply criticized the reasoning employed by the Court in Roe v. Wade. Section two of the article attempts to determine whether the Court expanded or limited the impact of Roe's flawed reasoning in its subsequent abortion cases until the time of Chief Justice Robert's confirmation. The evidence largely supports the conclusion that the Court expanded its flawed reasoning, reaching new heights of judicial hubris in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and new lows in its indifference to the evidentiary record in Stenberg v. Carhart. The third section of this article then carefully examines Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Gonzales v. Carhart. These are the only two decisions on abortion that have issued since Chief Justice Roberts assumed leadership of the Supreme Court. These cases appear to foreshadow greater judicial restraint when reviewing abortion-related legislation, and thus greater freedom for the people and their elected representatives to decide the proper limits of the state's interest in protecting women and the unborn life they carry within them. In the final section, I briefly speculate about the impact of a judicially modest approach in shaping future abortion jurisprudence. I predict fewer successful facial challenges to abortion regulations; greater emphasis on the requirements of constitutional and prudential standing; skepticism regarding claims of third-party representation; and careful review of the evidentiary record offered to support assertions that contested abortion regulations unduly burden women's liberty when seeking abortions. Contrary to claims made in abortion activitists' hysterical denunciations of Carhart II, the Court's decision upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban, I conclude that a judicially modest approach is unlikely to result in the overruling of Roe v. Wade within the foreseeable future.

Religion in Politics

Sightings 6/2/08

 

The Idolatry of America

-- Martin E. Marty

 

Let Damon Linker, author of The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege summarize Charles Marsh and his Wayward Christian Soldiers: Freeing the Gospel from Cultural Captivity: "A professor of religion at the University of Virginia and a devout evangelical, Marsh believes that the politicization of Christianity in recent years—using the good names and moral commandments of the church to 'serve national ambitions, strengthen middle-class values, and justify war'—has been spiritually disastrous for evangelicals in the United States. Conservative American Christians, he claims, have forgotten the difference between 'discipleship and partisanship.'  They have 'seized the language of the faith and made it captive to our partisan agendas—and done so with contempt for Scripture, tradition, and the global, ecumenical church.'  The result has been a oollapse into spiritual unseriousness, as Christians have 'recast' their faith 'according to our cultural preferences and baptized our prejudice, along with our will to power, in the shallow waters of civic piety."

 

Agreed.  All (basically) true.  So say significant numbers of evangelical pastors, theologians, professors, journalists, and activists.  They have entered a new stage of criticism, or moved beyond criticism, as piles of recent books attest.  So the interest in Marsh, who wants to "take stock of the whole colossal wreck of the evangelical witness and then try to rebuild a more authentic Christianity in its place," focuses on what he would do and how he would do it. Linker, in a review titled "The Idolatry of America," admires much of Marsh's work and goes a long way with him, but then criticizes Marsh for his over-reaches.  They are theological and political, and have to do with how theology relates to politics.

 

The New Republic, which published the review on April 23rd, usually tends to the secular or Jewish world of books, so it is impressive to see it give four dense pages to genuine Christian theological debate, with big names featured.  As Linker sees it, Marsh makes too much of two twentieth-century giants (pin-up boys in the Marty house), Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Barth, after a slow start, threw his weight behind the anti-Nazi clergy movements, criticized nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Protestant liberal theology for tailoring God to meet the political needs of the bourgeoisie—and so American evangelicals have done, summarizes Linker, taking "their theological cues not from the Bible or the Church Fathers but from Karl Rove and Michael Gerson."

 

Not so fast, or not so far, writes Linker:  Barth overdid his critique of German liberalism, and Marsh overdoes his comparing and analogizing of American evangelical capitulations to those German pastors who supported Hitler.  (MEM agrees: too much.) As for Bonhoeffer, the dissenter whom the Nazis executed one month before the war ended, Linker sees him as a hero—he'd better!—but does think Marsh is too ambivalent when he sees comparisons between clergy in Germany and evangelicals here today.  "The implication is there," because—and this is Linker's main point—Marsh expects too much, is too lofty in his expectations, too unwilling to settle for the ambiguities and messiness of being a believer and a citizen in the kind of world we have.  "We should be grateful to Marsh for reminding us of the nobility of the true believers." But, Linker adds, the fixation on purity, with which evangelicals at large were charged, now is applied to too-pure Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Marsh. The people just named help us deal with this.

----------

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

Same-Sex Unions, Revisited

About the development reported below:  Some MOJ-readers will lament it.  However, I welcome the development, because I regard the magisterial teaching on same-sex unions as deeply misguided and, worse, a font of serious injustice.

New York Times
May 29, 2008

New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere

By JEREMY W. PETERS  

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

[To read this rest of the article, click here.]

Judging Catholics, Catholics Judging

Next week, Aidan O'Neill--who is a Catholic and a (British) lawyer--will engage in a disputatio at Princeton University with Robby George, as part a conference on law and religion sponsored by Princeton's Program in Law and Public Affairs.

Aidan is interested is receiving comments on his paper:  Judging Catholics: Natural Law, The Catholic Church, and the Supreme Court.  Comments may take the form of posts here at MOJ or as e-mails to Aidan:  aoneill@Princeton.EDU

You can download Aidan's fine, provocative paper here:  Judging Catholics.