Mark Silk, at Spiritual Politics, gives an update on the issue of the Vatican's stance towards capitalism. It should surprise no one who does not occupy a corner office at the Ethics and Public Policy Center or the American Enterprise Institute that Catholic social thought has always registered deep reservations about capitalism. Some tried to denounce or demean the recent "Note" from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace because it failed to offer incense at the Altar of the Market. They mistakenly jumped on a directive from the Vatican's Secretary of State which they thought was intended to further question that "Note," but turned out to be directed at an entirely different document. ("Oops," as Gov. Perry likes to say.) But, as Silk points out, suspicion of market idolatry of the kind that animates today's Republican Party is deeply rooted and widely held within the precincts of the Holy See, including the man in white.
George Weigel, indulges in wholesome praise for the late John Courtney Murray, S.J. before throwing cheap shots at E.J. Dionne, in an article published at the National Review Online. You would not know it from Weigel's article that Murray actually did not want to reduce the Christian Gospel to a prop for Americanism, which seems to be Weigel's faux-intellectual calling card. You would also not know that the column by Dionne that Weigel attacks clearly and unambiguously aimed at defending the need for more expansive conscience exemptions which is at the center of the debate on religious liberty. You would also not know that, in his inaugural presidential address to the USCCB, Archbishop Timothy Dolan did not, in fact, stress the issue of religious liberty, indeed, he failed to mention the issue. And, it is beyond imagining that someone who fancies himself an astute observer of the Church would be shocked, shocked, to find divisions within the episcopal conference not so much on any given issue as on the relative stress of some issues over others, and the manner in which those issues should be confronted.
Stewart Lansley has an excellent article about income inequality in the UK in this week's Tablet. Turns out America is not all that exceptional in this regard.
Lansley's article also makes a point that cannot be made too often: We have been down this road before. The dynamics of laissez-faire rules the 1920s, and look what it brought us then?
Could his conversion have really taken hold? This was the question I asked myself during last week’s GOP debate when presidential aspirant for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued for a more humane immigration policy. Specifically, Gingrich said that it was important to draw distinctions between those undocumented workers (he called them illegals) who have newly arrived, have no roots or significant community ties, and should be deported and those undocumented workers who have been here for twenty-five years, belong to a church, have children and even grandchildren here, and who should be given a path to legalize their status.
I am missing Barney Frank already. It was not only his success as a legislator. It was not only that he was the smartest member of Congress and the funniest. It was his candor, especially his willingness to remind people that they got the government they chose. When people would bemoan the corruption of politicians he would famously quip, "You know, the public is no bargain either."
But, nothing tops his response to a woman who came to a town hall meeting during the debate over health care reform, carried a picture of the President defaced to look like Hitler, and called the reform effort a "Nazi policy." Congressman Frank's reply, caught on camera, is among the most memorable political events of my lifetime:
I take second place to no one in my championing of the cause of religious liberty, both in the context of the HHS mandates and in denouncing attacks on Gov. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. But, there are circumstances in which the issue of religious liberty can be invoked in ways that cloud the issue or, worse from my point of view, misunderstand what religion calls us to do. The facts of a case matter.
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on a group of nurses at a public hospital in New Jersey who are suing the hospital because it has decided they must participate in caring for women who are going to have an abortion and women who have just undergone one. Federal and state law guarantees the right of hospital workers not to participate in an abortion. President Obama’s administration re-wrote the conscience rules it inherited from President Bush, but the new rules drew a bright red line on the issue of abortion: No one can be forced to participate in one against their conscience.
Tomorrow, the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, where I am a visiting fellow, will host a symposium on tuition tax credits for parochial schools. The event, which is co-sponsored with the Catholic Association of Latino Leaders, will feature two panels addressing different aspects of the issue, from how to shape public opinion and pass legislation, to the profound effect Catholic schools have in the lives of those they serve. Cardinal Donald Wuerl will give the keynote address and the event will conclude with Mass. It is not too late to register which you can do by clicking here (we are keeping the registration open even at this late date due to the Thanksgiving holiday) and I encourage anyone with an interest in Catholic education to attend.
I do not expect much from the editors at the New York Times in the way of giving the Catholic Church a fair shake. They seem to be that variety of liberal for whom the Church is the Easter Bunny with real estate, the vestige of an earlier age or of childhood desires, certainly not the progenitor of Western civilization, possessing a coherent worldview.
This weekend, the Vatican website posted the first of several anticipated discourses by Pope Benedict XVI to the U.S. bishops during their ad limina visits. The hext can be found here.
I especially liked the fact that the Holy Father called attention to the USCCB's "Faithful Citizenship" document and to the recent symposium on the Intellectual Tasks of the New Evangelization that was covered more thoroughly here at NCR than anywhere else.
Rick Garnett, law prof at Notre Dame, has a great op-ed at USAToday on the subject of religious liberty. His conclusion highlights one of the reasons Catholics seem most exorcised by the issue today: "Given our deep-rooted commitment to religious freedom, our goal should be to resolve this conflict in a way that does not make the radical privatization of faith the price of acting consistently with that faith." For Catholics, faith can never be "privatized." Garnett's analysis is balanced and nuanced, something too infrequently found when the issue of the role of religion in the public square is engaged and his essay should be widely read.