Last Sunday's WaPo had a good, but not exhaustive, essay by Sally Jenkins on the debate over the Confederate battle flag. I concur in her sentiment that we should not erase history, but there is a difference between an historic artifact and a symbol of still present racism. Sometimes a symbol can be both, like the battle flag, and then it is the context that matters.
Yesterday, I began my review of Todd Scribner’s new book A Partisan Church: American Catholicism & the Rise of Neo-Conservative Catholics. As noted, he focuses on three neo-con Catholic intellectuals in particular, Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and George Weigel.
Mark Silk, at RNS, gives a roundup of conservative reactions to the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.
At the Atlantic, Leon Wieseltier rips into Michael Oren's taken on Jewish opposition to Netanyahu. Pure brilliance.
Todd Scribner has written an important book introducing a new generation of Catholic thinkers to the emergence of a Catholic neo-conservative worldview in the 1970s and 1980s. A Partisan Church: American Catholicism & the Rise of Neo-Conservative Catholics is thoroughly fair-minded in its treatment of its subject, as Scribner confines himself to letting Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus and George Weigel tell their own stories, with only occasional interjections of judicious criticism and commentary.
No Monday morning post his morning. I refer readers to my Saturday post on the Supreme Court decision which is listed on the blog roll just below this one.
At the blog Accidental Beatitude, Holly Taylor Coolman has some good thoughts on what Catholics should do in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. A cool head and a smart brain and a large heart, working together. Coolman is a treasure.
The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is a constitutional right yesterday. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia faulted the court for an opinion that lacked even a “thin veneer of law.” Scalia is wrong. The equal protection arguments in the majority decision are not to be so easily dismissed.
Lots going on today. I will wait to post on the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage until we see some responses from USCCB et al.
At La Stampa's Vatican Insider, Andrea Tornielli looks at the Acton Institute's objections to Laudato Si' - I do not know how many Vatican officials read Distinctly Catholic, but everyone reads La Stampa!
At stake yesterday was the future ability of 6.4 million Americans to receive subsidies for purchasing health insurance, even though they live in states that did not set up their own health care exchanges and, because of four ambiguous words, might have been denied those subsidies. That sound you heard a little past 10 a.m. yesterday morning was the collective sigh of relief, not only among the 6.4 million, but also from health care providers, especially those who care for the poor such as Catholic health care providers.
It would have been easy to spend the entire last week, since the release of Laudato Si’, doing nothing on this blog put play whack-a-mole, hitting the various detractors as they pop up their little heads. Most of the objections so far have been predictable and not worth the effort. But, two dissenters have come to my attention that warrant a response, one because the dissent is both incendiary and dumb, the other because the dissent is unintentionally on-target and smart.