Is it possible that one Catholic bishop has the guts to come out for HCR? Cf. this.
I've caught a moderate degree of flak from a few Mormons who believe I've misrepresented the position of their church regarding social justice. To restate my argument, it was that 1) the Mosaic Law, as enunciated in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, holds that the poor are to be provided for as a matter of public law, not individual charity; and 2) that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which saw itself as restoring both ancient Israel and the early Church, incorporated this aspect of the Mosaic Law into its own public law in the nineteenth century.
The late Dean May, an eminent Mormon historian, laid out the course of Mormon social welfare policy 20 years ago in a fine article: "Body and Soul: The Record of Mormon Religious Philanthropy," Church History, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 322-336. Beginning with the Book of Mormon (4 Nephi 3), the LDS Church was imbued with the teaching that care of the poor was a collective responsibility. As May makes clear, this was from the outset a teaching focused not on all the poor but on the Mormon community itself. To that extent, Mormons were under less of an obligation to care for the stranger among them than were the ancient Israelites. But it was equally the case that, as members of the Church, they were obligated to provide for the poor, whether enthusiastically or begrudgingly. By my lights, that's a corporate commitment to social justice.
The late Dean May, an eminent Mormon historian, laid out the course of Mormon social welfare policy 20 years ago in a fine article: "Body and Soul: The Record of Mormon Religious Philanthropy," Church History, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 322-336. Beginning with the Book of Mormon (4 Nephi 3), the LDS Church was imbued with the teaching that care of the poor was a collective responsibility. As May makes clear, this was from the outset a teaching focused not on all the poor but on the Mormon community itself. To that extent, Mormons were under less of an obligation to care for the stranger among them than were the ancient Israelites. But it was equally the case that, as members of the Church, they were obligated to provide for the poor, whether enthusiastically or begrudgingly. By my lights, that's a corporate commitment to social justice.
It is hard to imagine anyone who could be unmoved by the interview given to NCR's Thomas Fox yesterday by the two lesbian partners who have been told by the archdiocese of Denver that their two daughters can no longer attend a parish school. While it's not for me to say whether they are "good Catholics," they are without question devoted to their faith, eager for their daughters to be brought up in it, and anything but interested in making a public statement about the Church's stand on same-sex relationships.
What's clear from their account is that the school itself had no problem with their family, and that that probably went for the parish priest who oversees it as well. The problem had to do with the regime of Archbishop Charles Chaput. My guess is that someone in the parish let the archdiocese know that there was a lesbian couple in Boulder whose kids were attending Sacred Heart of Jesus elementary school, and the hammer came down.
Over at In All Things, Michael O'Loughlin is quite right to connect this story to a new policy of Catholic Charities in Washington requiring new employees to sign a statement to promise they will not "violate the principles or tenets" of the Church. Then there's the ongoing if stuttering effort to investigate women religious. Hammers are coming down all over.
What's clear from their account is that the school itself had no problem with their family, and that that probably went for the parish priest who oversees it as well. The problem had to do with the regime of Archbishop Charles Chaput. My guess is that someone in the parish let the archdiocese know that there was a lesbian couple in Boulder whose kids were attending Sacred Heart of Jesus elementary school, and the hammer came down.
Over at In All Things, Michael O'Loughlin is quite right to connect this story to a new policy of Catholic Charities in Washington requiring new employees to sign a statement to promise they will not "violate the principles or tenets" of the Church. Then there's the ongoing if stuttering effort to investigate women religious. Hammers are coming down all over.
For those who like such things, I'd recommend curling up on a rainy day with the Ninth Circuit's 2-1 decision in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, which reverses a district court ruling that having public school children recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God" violates the First Amendment's prohibition of religious establishments. Writing for the majority, Judge Carlos T. Bea spends 57 pages doing an astonishing series of legal back flips to show that the phrase is all about patriotism and the Founders and limited government, as opposed to having a religious purpose. Whereupon Judge Stephen Reinhardt spends 136 pages giving the performance an F, with extreme prejudice.
What happens next, according to the Los Angeles Times, is an effort to get an en banc hearing from the entire Ninth Circuit and, failing that, an appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether the justices will go for it is an interesting question. They took Michael Newdow's first Pledge case, and then decided to punt rather than decide it on the merits--asserting that Newdow lacked standing to bring the case. That was back in June of 2004, and it certainly looked like a majority of the justices just didn't want to infect the election campaign with a huge symbolic "under God" fracas.
The real problem here is that it's very hard to make a case that having government officials (i.e. public school teachers) lead students every morning in a patriotic exercise that invokes God does not amount to a religious exercise--especially when you look at the legislative history of the insertion of the phrase into the Pledge in 1954. Yet the last thing sensible people should want is a Grand Public Cause resulting in a constitutional amendment establishing "under God" and who knows what else as religious exceptions to the First Amendment.
The Pledge is one long declarative sentence, the first half of which is inarguable ("I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; and to the Republic for which it stands"); the second half, wishful or perhaps prayerful ("one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"). Probably the best thing to pray for is that the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court decline to hear the case.
What happens next, according to the Los Angeles Times, is an effort to get an en banc hearing from the entire Ninth Circuit and, failing that, an appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether the justices will go for it is an interesting question. They took Michael Newdow's first Pledge case, and then decided to punt rather than decide it on the merits--asserting that Newdow lacked standing to bring the case. That was back in June of 2004, and it certainly looked like a majority of the justices just didn't want to infect the election campaign with a huge symbolic "under God" fracas.
The real problem here is that it's very hard to make a case that having government officials (i.e. public school teachers) lead students every morning in a patriotic exercise that invokes God does not amount to a religious exercise--especially when you look at the legislative history of the insertion of the phrase into the Pledge in 1954. Yet the last thing sensible people should want is a Grand Public Cause resulting in a constitutional amendment establishing "under God" and who knows what else as religious exceptions to the First Amendment.
The Pledge is one long declarative sentence, the first half of which is inarguable ("I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; and to the Republic for which it stands"); the second half, wishful or perhaps prayerful ("one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"). Probably the best thing to pray for is that the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court decline to hear the case.
Expanding health coverage reduces abortions. That's what T.R. Reid argues in today's WaPo, and it's a powerful argument. Look at our peer countries in the developed world. All have universal health coverage and most include abortion in that coverage and all have lower rates of abortion than we do. Why? On the front end, women have access to contraceptive services; on the back end, they know there will be health coverage for them and their babies if they carry to term. So, says Reid:
They will no doubt claim that if their efforts bear fruit in the long run, abortion will be banned and the abortion rate will go down big time. In fact, however, there is little correlation between abortion rates and the legal status of abortion. The strong correlation is between abortion legality and abortion safety. Where abortion is legal, abortions are safe; where it's not, women die. What's important to recognize is that that's a price a lot of hard-line pro-lifers are prepared to pay.
For various reasons, then, expanding health-care coverage reduces the rate of abortion. All the other industrialized democracies figured that out years ago. The failure to recognize this plain statistical truth may explain why American churches have played such a small role in our national debate on health care. Searching for ways to limit abortions, our faith leaders have managed to overlook a proven approach that's on offer now: expanding health-care coverage.The only thing wrong with that paragraph is that it assumes that the pro-life faith leaders he's talking about are focused on reducing the number of abortions. That's the same mistake, I'm afraid, that the Obamaite "common ground" folks also make. But what's become clear over the past year is that the pro-lifers who oppose HCR not merely as a pretext are concerned with principle and personal purity, not abortion reduction. That is to say, they want to push the principle of "no public funding for abortions" as far as they can because 1) it helps establish the idea that abortion is disapproved of by the government; and 2) it permits them to believe that none of "their" taxpayer dollars are going to pay for abortions.
They will no doubt claim that if their efforts bear fruit in the long run, abortion will be banned and the abortion rate will go down big time. In fact, however, there is little correlation between abortion rates and the legal status of abortion. The strong correlation is between abortion legality and abortion safety. Where abortion is legal, abortions are safe; where it's not, women die. What's important to recognize is that that's a price a lot of hard-line pro-lifers are prepared to pay.
Last week's statement critical of the proposed anti-homosexuality law by the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) certainly suggests that. It's signed by the leaders of the country's Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Seventh-Day Adventist churches, as well as by its Muslim Mufti, and published in New Vision, the state-owned and largest circulation daily. As Box Turtle Bulletin's Jim Burroway points out, the statement is itself plenty homophobic. But given the record of silence and worse from Uganda's religious leadership on the bill, this has to be taken not only as a good sign but also as an indication that the fix is in. We'll see, but don't say I didn't tell you so.
Under withering fire from numerous corners of the religious blogosphere, Glenn Beck first doubled down on his animadversions against religious bodies that place "social justice" on their escutcheons, then walked himself back a bit (relevant clips here). What emerges is the Beckian doctrine that religious injunctions to care for the poor and do other socially just things are fine so long as they are understood as being about you. Which is to say, individuals can do all those things enjoined in, for example, Isaiah 58 for their own spiritual benefit ("the Lord will guide you always"), but are not to use such injunctions to advocate for government social welfare programs. To give the devil his due, Beck is here taking one side in an old debate: "Do we help our neighbor for the neighbor's sake or for our own?" Twelfth-century monks and regular canons wasted a lot of parchment debating this issue, with the monks taking the Beckian position and the canons arguing the opposite. Be that as it may, it's worth considering what those parts of Scripture that enunciate laws for society (i.e. not the Gospels) have to say. Here I'd point to the laws on gleaning laid down in the so-called Holiness Code of Leviticus (so beloved of American conservatives for its apparent condemnation of homosexual acts):
19:10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.Now, under that distinctive Israelite species of polity that Josephus called theocracy, this is not voluntary charity undertaken for your own spiritual benefit. It is mandated welfare--social justice of just the sort that Beck despises. Not to belabor the point, but the Judeo-Christian tradition from which Beck's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints springs expects the poor to be provided for as a matter of public law. And indeed, in the days when the LDS Church ran its corner of North America as a theocracy, that's just what it did.
23:22 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.
The Irish bishops come to town and are sent away assured that nothing serious is going to happen to them. Pedophile scandals proceed to break out on the Continent, centering on Germany. The pontiff's brother, Georg Ratzinger, does a Sgt. Schultz, saying he knew nothing about allegations of abuse at the schools affiliated with his elite choir. Osservatore Romano says all this wouldn't have happened if there were more women in positions of ecclesiastical authority. Cardinal Schönborn almost says this wouldn't have happened if it weren't for priestly celibacy. The Vatican's chief exorcist says the Vatican is possessed by the Devil.So are the wheels coming off the pope-mobile? That's pretty much Rocco's take. To be sure, by medieval standards, it may not seem like much. No one's elected an anti-pope or forced the Curia to pack up and move to Avignon. But think of the lurches from insulting the Muslims at Regensburg to freaking out the Jews over the Tridentine Mass and the canonization of Pius XII to dissing the Anglicans with Anglicanorum coetibus to appalling just about everybody by cozying up to the Lefebvrists.
It's getting hard not to see the Benedictine papacy as a comedy of errors. Or maybe, a tragedy.
..then how to understand those who insist it is?Over at Politics Daily, David Gibson walks carefully through the allegations, with the help of Washington and Lee law professor Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, an ardent pro-lifer who's an expert on abortion and health care.
"The bottom line is that health care reform is pro-life," Jost said. "We're going to save an awful lot of lives with this bill ... I identify as a Christian, strongly, and I identify as someone who believes in the sacredness of life. I just think this is a pro-life bill. I'm really discouraged that people not only don't want it but also are spreading erroneous information about it. Because I don't think that's something that Christians should do."What gives? In Gibson's view, "Those who have laid down a marker against the Senate bill have a lot invested in seeing it fail, or having it changed, if only to save face given all they have invested in portraying the bill as 'pro-abortion.'"
But not only to save face. The issue has also served opponents of health care reform as a useful pretext. Consider, for example Thomas Peters' March 1 post on the American Principles Project Blog entitled, "Abortion funding issue still last best hope for halting health care legislation passage." Such people will not permit themselves to admit that a bill is not pro-abortion simply because to do so would advance the cause of reform. The question comes down to which opponents fall into that camp.
Today, 25 pro-life Catholic theologians and evangelical leaders issued a letter (complete with point-by-point analysis) urging members of Congress not to let misleading information about the Senate bill's abortion stance keep them from voting for reform. It's time to separate the sheep from the goats.
Big time. In Hustler.
