Mirror of Justice

Pope Francis on, e.g., "integral human development" and the right to life

Pope Francis's annual address to diplomats is getting a fair bit of coverage (here, e.g., is America's story) and, in many instances (here is an example), the coverage is framing the talk in terms of its relevance to President Trump.  Here is John Allen's as-per-usual indispensable coverage. 

For my own part, I was struck by the emphasis on "integral human development" and the (both implicit and explicit) recognition that (as many of us have written over the years here at MOJ) at the heart of any Catholic approach to law, policy, and politics is a proposal of "moral anthropology."

For true peace can only come about on the basis of a vision of human beings capable of promoting an integral development respectful of their transcendent dignity. . . .

One enemy of peace is a “reductive vision” of the human person, which opens the way to the spread of injustice, social inequality and corruption. . . .

As Allen noted, the Pope re-expressed his concern that the language and practice of "human rights" can, sometimes, be put to use as a kind of "ideological colonization":

From the beginning, Pope Francis has been a notoriously difficult figure to classify by the usual Western standards of left v. right - seemingly quite progressive on many matters, and yet stubbornly traditional on others. . . .

Francis also warned of what he described as “debatable notions of human rights” which gathered force in the wake of the social upheavals of the 1960s, which, he said, risk becoming a form of “ideological colonization.”

“Debatable notions of human rights have been advanced that are at odds with the culture of many countries,” the pope said. “The latter feel that they are not respected in their social and cultural traditions, and instead neglected with regard to the real needs they have to face.”

“Somewhat paradoxically, there is a risk that, in the very name of human rights, we will see the rise of modern forms of ideological colonization by the stronger and the wealthier, to the detriment of the poorer and the most vulnerable,” Francis said.

"Gunpowder"

I binge-watched the recent HBO / BBC series, "Gunpowder," and enjoyed it.  There are some liberties taken in terms of history but I'll confess to being (pleasantly) surprised that the "Catholic side" of those times comes off as well as it does.  There are some pretty graphic torture scenes (drawing-and-quartering, burning (in Spain), and peine forte e dure -- in a scene borrowed anachronistically from the martyrdom of Margaret Clitherow).  The main characters (Cecil, Vaux, Garnet, Catesby) are well-cast. 

4th Circuit Win for Pregnancy Care Center in Compelled-Speech Case

The Fourth Circuit ruled today that the city of Baltimore cannot compel a pregnancy-care center to post signs in its waiting room stating that it does not perform or refer for abortions. The Center is a Christian non-profit operating in space provided rent-free by a Catholic parish. It argued that the ordinance forced it to raise, in the sensitive context of "its own waiting room," the topic--abortion--that is "at odds with its foundational beliefs and with the principles of those who have given their working lives to it." The opinion, by Judge Wilkinson, rejects the city's arguments that all of the Center's speech is commercial speech and professional speech, and thus deserving lesser First Amendment protection, simply because it provides (free) ultrasounds, counseling, and other services. The court then concludes that the ordinance is not narrowly tailored:

Baltimore seeks to combat deceptive advertising and consequent delays in abortion services. In that respect the ordinance is quite overinclusive. It applies to pregnancy centers without regard to whether their advertising is misleading, or indeed whether they advertise at all. [T]he direct application of laws prohibiting misleading advertising might provide a better fit for the problems about which the City is concerned.

      There are, in short, too many problems with the City’s case. The dangers of compelled speech in an area as ideologically sensitive and spiritually fraught as this one require that the government not overplay its hand.

Becket, who has litigated the case very well as always, has a page of resources on it. The St. Thomas Religious Liberty Appellate Clinic, which I supervise, filed an amicus brief supporting the clinic on behalf of the Democrats for Life and the Christian Legal Society. We argued, among other things, that to call the speech here "commercial," when the Center charges no money for its services and the law does not target any advertising itself, 

would expand that category to sweep in not just the Center, but a wide range of organizations and ministries that provide free services to those in need. This effect would follow, first, from the City’s arguments that the Center “proposes a commercial transaction” and has an “economic motivation.” The City argues that the Center fits within those categories because, although it offers services for free, the services are “commercially valuable”—that is, they could be provided for money. But nonprofit or religious soup kitchens, pastoral counseling services, immigrant/refugee ministries, and countless other organizations all offer free services that could be provided for money. By the City’s rationale, all of these organizations could be subjected to disclosure mandates and other intrusive regulation.

The Fourth Circuit distinguished the case from the NIFLA case currently before the Supreme Court: "In [NIFLA], the court applied the professional speech doctrine [reducing the level of speech protection] only to compelled disclosures in clinics licensed by the state. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the question of whether the doctrine applied to disclosures required in unlicensed pregnancy centers like the one at issue here."

New ACLU lawsuit aims to shut down St. Vincent Catholic Charities foster services

Sigh.  The happy warriors at The Becket Fund are on the case, and have more information.   The ACLU's position is, it seems to me, yet another reminder of (what I've called) the widespread "confusion about discrimination."

O'Regan's "97 Aphorisms and Apothegms" inspired by Newman

Run (figuratively speaking), don't walk over to the Church Life Journal and check out my colleague (theologian) Cyril O'Regan's "97 Aphorisms and Apothegms Inspired by Reading John Henry Newman."  Great stuff.  A few:

If you are praised continually, then it is necessary for you to ask what are you doing wrong. . . .

An apology for Christianity is not to beg your leave, but to boldly defend what is beautiful, good, and true about what has formed and transformed you. . . .

Let’s call it by its name. The Reformation is not a reformation, it is a revolution. It not only tore down, it tore up. We are looking for the roots since. . . .

A major value of the secular is that it ratifies the separation of church and world, church and the state. A major disvalue of the secular is that it has the tendency to turn differences into antagonisms. . . .

The risk Catholicism runs in the university is that faith will be lost. The prize it seeks is that faith will be made stronger and become mine. . . .

See also, while you're at it, Cyril's "97 Aphorisms Adduced from the Thought of Pope Benedict XVI."

O'Regan's "97 Aphorisms and Apothegms" inspired by Newman

Run (figuratively speaking), don't walk over to the Church Life Journal and check out my colleague (theologian) Cyril O'Regan's "97 Aphorisms and Apothegms Inspired by Reading John Henry Newman."  Great stuff.  A few:

If you are praised continually, then it is necessary for you to ask what are you doing wrong. . . .

An apology for Christianity is not to beg your leave, but to boldly defend what is beautiful, good, and true about what has formed and transformed you. . . .

Let’s call it by its name. The Reformation is not a reformation, it is a revolution. It not only tore down, it tore up. We are looking for the roots since. . . .

A major value of the secular is that it ratifies the separation of church and world, church and the state. A major disvalue of the secular is that it has the tendency to turn differences into antagonisms. . . .

The risk Catholicism runs in the university is that faith will be lost. The prize it seeks is that faith will be made stronger and become mine. . . .

See also, while you're at it, Cyril's "97 Aphorisms Adduced from the Thought of Pope Benedict XVI."

Cecile Richards and the Casual Abuse of Language

A recent post by Margot Cleveland at The Federalist (here) led me to revisit an op-ed by Cecile Richards in The Hill (here).  Among the many contestable assertions set forth in the piece, Richards' remark on then judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett stands out.  She claims that Barrett "has publicly said that employers should be able to deny their employees access to birth control." 

It is true that, when she was a law professor, Amy Barrett opposed the Obama administration's attempt to repudiate the exercise of the right of conscience and curtail religious liberty through its abortifacient/contraceptive mandate. (See here).  Many MOJ contributors joined in this opposition -- an opposition rooted in both law and morality that was vindicated in the nation's highest court (see here and here).  

Moreover, notwithstanding Cecile Richards' efforts to the contrary, Amy Coney Barrett's nomination was confirmed by the Senate, and she now serves as a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (see here).

This happy turn of events should not, however, dissuade us from returning to Richards' casual abuse of language and seeing it for what it is.  Purveyors of abortion, such as Richards, are, of course, famous for employing euphemisms to conceal the gruesome horror of what they actually do (see here and here).

But the abuse of language can take many forms.

The point has already been made by others, but it bears repeating.  Those employers who seek to avoid providing contraceptives and abortifacient drugs through their employee health insurance plans do not thereby "deny their employees access to birth control."  By availing itself of a legal conscience exemption, the employer in no way prevents its employee from driving to the local Walgreens and purchasing a prescription for Ortho-Cyclen or Yaz.  Making use of the exemption does mean that the employer does not wish to subsidize or otherwise directly contribute to a specific legal action undertaken by its employee, but this is not the same as denying the employee access to that course of action.

Indeed, to claim otherwise is to defy the normal meaning of words in English.

To illustrate the point, consider the following.  An employer chooses to provide a number of benefits to its employees -- a 401k plan, a month's paid vacation, subsidized parking, etc. -- but not provide others.  If the employer choses not to provide a particular benefit -- free membership at a health club -- no one would say that the employer had "denied its employees access to the gym."  No one with a basic command of the English language would claim that the employer had prohibited its employees from physical exercise or from living a healthy lifestyle.  We may or may not think the employer's decision wise (e.g. as a matter of encouraging healthy living, or building workplace morale, etc.), but no one would sensibly describe the employer's actions as denial of access to the thing not supplied.  Every employee remains free to lift weights at Gold's or hit the treadmill at Planet Fitness.  They simply must exercise this freedom without the specific financial subsidy or institutional endorsement of their employer.

Of course, the claim of denial of access would make sense in some circumstances. If, for example, the employer refused its employees any time off, the employees would rightly complain that they had been “denied access” to a vacation while remaining employed.  And if the employer declined to make contributions to an employee 401k plan, the employees could say that they had been denied those funds. But they could not say that they had been denied access to saving for their retirement.  In the same way, the employer that chooses not to host a workplace cafeteria could not rightfully be accused of denying its workers access to food – not, that is, without butchering the English language.

Nor would a normal user of English claim that the employer who chose not to provide its employees with free gym memberships be rightfully accused of having "imposed" its beliefs about the value of exercise on its workforce. In the debate over the Obama era HHS abortifacient/contraceptive mandate it was commonplace to hear that the employers opposing the measure were seeking to impose their religious beliefs on their employees (see, e.g. Hobby Lobby, here, Ginsburg, dissenting, p. 32).  This is nonsense.  In seeking an employer religious exemption, the employee is not made to abide by the employer’s beliefs.  Rather both employer and employee are free to follow their own beliefs – as disparate as they may be – without interference from the other.

The casual abuse of language may be ignored, and is easily overlooked, especially when perpetuated by a media sympathetic to the cause being asserted.  The culture wars have claimed many casualties, including religious conscience and the lives of unborn. The ordinary meaning of language should not be added to this toll.