The Cathoholic

Kagan Confirmation: Pro-life Concerns

Today, the Senate begins the confirmation hearings for President Obama's second nominee to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School. Last week, Judge Robert Bork, Bill Saunders  of Americans United for Life, and Gerard Bradley, a constitutional law professor from Notre Dame outlined their concerns regarding Kagan's lack of judicial experience, politicized approach to interpreting the law, and admiration for prominent jurors who, in their view, embrace judicial activism. I reviewed their concerns in an article for the National Catholic Register. Kagan, of course, is expected to win. But her critics want  to educate the American public about the relevant issues.  Pro-life advocates and groups that oppose jurors "legislating from the bench," hope to use votes for Kagan as a campaign issue in the fall--politically vulnerable Senators, they argue,will wish they had thought twice before confirming her.

U.S. Bishops Boost Marriage

---

News

Bishops Boost Marriage

BY JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND

REGISTER CORRESPONDENT

November 29-December 5, 2009 Issue | Posted 11/20/09 at 5:04 PM

BALTIMORE — Over the last five years, the defense of marriage has emerged as a key catechetical, legislative and religious liberty issue for the U.S. episcopacy.

Few bishops understand that better than Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington.

As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gathered for its fall general meeting, Archbishop Wuerl had to keep one eye on a same-sex “marriage” bill in Washington that likely will pass early next month.

Public debate on the bill has prompted bitter resistance to any broad exemption for Catholic social institutions with city contracts. City council members have accused the archdiocese of issuing “ultimatums.” Church officials contend that “without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services.”

When marriage is the topic of debate, the U.S. bishops face a war that must be fought on multiple fronts: theological, cultural and political. No surprise that Archbishop Wuerl — who has defended Catholic teaching in the pages of The Washington Post, in parish bulletins and in public forums — applauds the arrival of the bishops’ new pastoral letter, “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan.”

“The heart of the pastoral statement is the definition of marriage,” said Archbishop Wuerl. “It is so important for our faithful and for the wide community to understand this; we want to reaffirm this teaching so that people can speak with assurance about marriage. What is it about marriage that makes it unique and important? Why do people follow through with all the effort associated with marriage?”

In 2004, the bishops approved a multilayered pastoral initiative designed to strengthen marriage; the pastoral letter, approved during this month’s meeting, is described as “both an end and a beginning” of this effort.

As the teaching authority of the American hierarchy is increasingly challenged in battles over same-sex “marriage,” Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, chairman of the Subcommittee on Marriage and Family, heralded the letter as a “foundational document” and an “authoritative point of reference.”

The letter addresses marriage’s critical role in the nurturing and education of children; it challenges modern attempts to reduce married love to a “private” couples relationship and warns against the destructive consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions.

Theology of the Body

Chastened by the increasingly skeptical response they have received from younger Catholics in particular, the bishops plan to communicate the central teaching of the pastoral in Web-based campaigns as well as through more traditional catechetical methods. The letter presents marriage as both a “natural institution” and a “Christian sacrament,” and takes note of social science research confirming the essential role of traditional marriage.

“There is a huge need for catechesis on marriage,” confirmed Bishop Richard Malone of Portland, Maine, who helped to lead a repeal of same-sex “marriage” in Maine earlier this month. “Throughout that public debate in the state, I was alarmed by the number of our Catholic people who have a shallow understanding of what marriage is.”

The pastoral letter incorporates the central teaching of Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth) on the unitive and procreative dimensions of conjugal unions. But it also embraces the fresh insights of John Paul II’s theology of the body.

During an era when mass media encourages Americans to shrug off the distinctive characteristics of men and women, and where the young learn to treat the human body as a kind of machine that can be exploited or manipulated at will, the theology of the body offers an integrated vision of the human person. In this teaching, sexual complementarity is a gift to be embraced as the foundation for deep marital communion.

The late Pontiff provided a modern meditation on a fundamental truth: The body expresses the person’s deepest values. Sexual relationships that ignore marital vows of faithfulness, permanence and openness to children violate basic human dignity.

“In drafting the letter, the committee felt that the insights John Paul II made in the theology of the body strengthened the case we can make to people today. Paul VI provided a great foundation, but Humanae Vitae didn’t get the proper catechesis when it was first promulgated,” said Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan.

The U.S. hierarchy’s initial failure to effectively defend Humanae Vitae is now viewed as a primary reason for ongoing confusion among Catholics about the evils of contraception and — subsequently — the immorality of some reproductive technologies and of same-sex “marriage.”

A New Hunger

Yet, Archbishop Naumann suggests that the past 40 years also have created a new hunger for this teaching.

“We have the experience of the past 40 years. That has given us a lot of empirical data to substantiate the teaching and encourage an openness to the teaching that didn’t exist in the ’60s,” he suggested.

The bishops’ pastoral initiative on marriage may also help to shore up catechetical efforts in states where same-sex “marriage” is already legal. “The pastoral gives us an opportunity to develop a new apologetics,” said Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston. “We don’t hate gays, and we are not trying to deny anyone their civil rights. This is about the defense of marriage.”

The bishops acknowledge that a more intensive effort to present the countercultural elements of Church teaching on marriage is likely to provoke intense resistance not only from homosexual couples seeking social approbation, but also from poorly catechized Catholics.

The pastoral letter addresses a number of sensitive issues — including reproductive technologies that help infertile couples to begin families but violate Catholic teaching. The USCCB also approved a separate document that provides more detailed doctrinal analysis and pastoral reflection on in vitro fertilization, cloning and related procedures.

But bishops who have ministered to infertile couples acknowledge that many are bemused by the Church’s apparent departure from what they define as a pro-child theological tradition.

“I expect that many couples won’t see the need for ethical reflection on reproductive technologies,” said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, Calif., who helped jump-start California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that led to the repeal of same-sex “marriage” in the state and is eager to bring the pastoral letter to his diocese.

Pushback from dissenting Catholics and political opponents is a given, but during the Baltimore meeting, the bishops appeared both revitalized and resigned as they considered the challenges ahead. Same-sex “marriage” fights appear likely in New Jersey and New York, and many bishops planned to meet with their senators about health-care reform before returning home.

During an afternoon press conference, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the bishops’ conference, was asked if his colleagues had “regained their political strength.”

“We know many of these issues are both moral and political. Our task is to bring the moral voice to the debate,” responded Cardinal George.

But then he acknowledged that the bishops’ work occasionally influenced the larger public debate, roiling partisan emotions that could fuel a backlash against the hierarchy. “There is something more than Catholic doctrine involved. Some issues are also political, and they draw on loyalties that go beyond Church membership.”

D.C.Catholic Charities Ends Spousal Benefits

Today, the Washington Post and local blogs reported that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington has  informed employees that spousal benefits will no longer be offered to future employees or the future spouses of present employees. The agency's new policy comes in the wake of the D.C. Council's recent vote to approve same-sex marriage--a move that becomes law tomorrow. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. had warned late last year that the D.C. council's excessively narrow religious exemption could make it impossible for Catholic Charities to be in compliance with city contracts. In February, Catholic Charities closed its foster care and adoption services. Critics of Archbishop Wuerl's position had argued that he should adopt the so-called "San Francisco option" that provided health benefits to one other person residing in an employee's household. Approved by then Archbishop Levada of San Francisco, the policy sought to avoid any explicit support for same-sex civil unions that had been approved by the city. However, Archbishop Wuerl contended that the legal and political context in the District was different: the council's language requiring all city contractors to be in compliance with the new same-sex marriage law would require the church to affirm such unions--a move that would contradict Catholic teaching on marriage.

Here's my piece on the issue in the National Catholic Register, published a few days later. By then Chief Justice John Roberts had refused a request by opponants of gay marriage to stay the  law. Yesterday, jubilant gay and lesbian couples lined up yesterday to get their marriage licenses.

D.C. Same-Sex Marriage Vote & Religious Freedom

In the wake of the D.C. City Council vote approving legal same-sex marriage, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. is poised to make a drastic retreat from its work with the needy. Why? Because the proposed law, which must still be approved by Congress, provides a narrow exemption for church-run social agencies. Archbishop Wuerl has refused to provide benefits to spouses in same-sex unions and he will not approve the placement of children with same-sex couples.

The archbishop has been criticized by gay rights activists, but also by some local Catholics who argue that he should adopt the "San Francisco option," and simply provide benefits to some other individual residing in an employee's household. Wuerl, however, does not believe this is an acceptable solution. Check out my article on this breaking news in the National Catholic Register.

Same-Sex Marriage Defeat in Maine

This week I reported for the National Catholic Register on Bishop Richard Malone of Portland's successful fight to repeal legalized same-sex marriage in Maine. Though Maine and California are very different, it's striking how supporters of traditional marriage in this secular New England state followed much of the Proposition 8 playbook. The article also covers an important related issue likely to crop up in future battles over gay marriage: the development of legal arguments opposing the disclosure of campaign donors or petition signers on First Amendment grounds, a simmering legal debate noted by the New York Times.

Same-Sex Marriage: In-Laws Optional?

As the New England states continue to legalize same-sex marriage and gay activists continue to insist that legal marriage is an essential civil right, the ensuing political rhetoric has overlooked the convergence of two puzzling trends: Why gay Americans increasingly celebrate marriage, and why heterosexual Americans increasingly back away from it -- even when intended or unintended pregnancy would once have prompted a march to the altar. What's going on? 

A few months ago, I read an article about "fantasy weddings" marketed to same-sex couples, and recall thinking: "Huh? The party before the fall?" Fantasy weddings have emerged as a big industry in this country. But I have always suspected (with only anecdotal evidence to support my suspicions) that the bigger and more extravagant the wedding celebration, the more likely the marriage will fail.The modern wedding production is more about romance than reality;  the organizational and financial challenges become a dangerous distraction from the fundamental purpose of marriage and the self-sacrifice required to keep family life afloat.

Today, traditional marriage has become a bit tattered, as we all know. Heterosexual couples are pre-occupied with career advancement or they linger in an extended adolescence.  Children are optional, and so, increasingly, are vows like fidelity and permanence. A vast counseling industry has sprung up to help couples stay married or break up with a minimum of psychic stress and guilt.Still, traditional marriage limps along.  

President Obama and his wife's recent evening on the town in New York City underscores the perennial struggles of married couples to keep their love alive. But the Obamas' evening out also puts the spotlight on a modern ritual: "date night" for husbands and wives. No one blames the Obamas for having some fun, but the glamorous staging of their evening is a nod to a celluloid narrative that presents married life as a kind of extended Valentine's Day. As the New York Times story about the Obamas' date night points out:

“The Obamas really are products of the culture,” said Christine B. Whelan, a sociologist at the University of Iowa who studies the American family. The Obamas exemplify what sociologists call the “individualized marriage,” she added, where a thriving relationship is marked by love and mutual attraction, not just duty to family and social roles."

So what has all this to do with same-sex marriage? In the Weekly Standard, Sam Schulman asks a different question: What has same-sex marriage to do with traditional marriage? HIs answer: Absolutely nothing. The institution of marriage is anchored in the kinship system that sought to protect and regulate female fertility--a preoccupation that necessarily established a long list of obligations. Champagne, flowers and chocolates were strictly optional. 

Schulman  writes: "I think that the fundamental objection to gay marriage among most who oppose it has very little to do with one's feelings about the nature of homosexuality or what the Bible has to say about sodomy. The obstacle to wanting gay marriage is instead how we use and depend on marriage itself--and how little marriage, understood completely, affects or is relevant to gay people in love. Gay marriage is not so much wrong as unnecessary. But if it comes about, it will not be gay marriage that causes the harm I fear, as what will succeed its inevitable failure."

He believes that same-sex couples will determine on their own that the benefits accrued in  marriage are simply not worth the obligations it imposes. Unfortunately, by the time same-sex couples and the larger culture arrive at this juncture, traditional marriage as an institution could be in even worse shape than it is now. Why? Because same-sex couples will assist in the unravelling of the social constrains and familial obligations that constitute the foundation of marriage as a once sturdy, if occasionally oppressive cultural institution.

"As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone. The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children's lovers--or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are "mature" or "ready"? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules--rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes?....

"There is no doubt that women and children have suffered throughout human history from being over-protected and controlled. The consequences of under-protection and indifference will be immeasurably worse. In a world without kinship, women will lose their hard-earned status as sexual beings with personal autonomy and physical security. Children will lose their status as nonsexual beings."

One of the best meditations on the manifold obligations and joys intertwined in kinship practices must be an essay by  Leon and Amy Kass: "What is your Name?" These two professors from the University of Chicago  offer some very interesting insights regarding the deeper significance of 'naming a child' -- one of the primary kinship rituals that underscores parental authority, but also the mother and father's  responsibility for the defense, nurture and education of  their offspring:

"The given name, given seriously, thus provides identity and individuality but within family and community; recognizes continuity with lives of the past but bears hopes and promises for the new life in the future; embodies general aspiration but acknowledges individual distinction; reflects both present affection and desire for future improvement; acknowledges at least tacitly that one's child is to be one's replacement; celebrates the joyous wonder of the renewal of human possibility while accepting the awesome responsibility for helping that possibility to be realized; and pays homage to the mysterious source of human life and human individuality.

"In all these ways, the naming of a child is, in fact, an emblem of the entire parent-child relation, in both its human generality and its radical particularity. Human children are born naked and nameless, like the animals; they become humanized only through rearing, the work not of nature but of acts of speech and symbolic deed, including praise and blame, reward and punishment, custom, habituation, and education. They become humanized, in the first instance, at the hands of parents, who, among other duties, try steadily to teach children how to call all things by their proper names and to show them how to acquire a good name for themselves."

Of course, the West has long been engaged in the  disentangling of kinship obligations from individual moral choices, including the selection of a spouse. Today, Americans reside within a culture of  individual autonomy, which finds its origins in  the Enlightenment. But the trend rapidly accelerated with the sexual revolution and artificial birth control -- a topic Schulman does not address. The separation of  sex from procreation ultimately led to the separation of procreation from sex. Both developments rendered the kindship system obsolete. 

At the center of the new ethos is  the autonomous individual responsible to no one but him or herself, with pleasure as the primary aim of  sexual relations. Of course, residual kinship structures and rituals have protected the culture from the full consequences of this development. Though roughly 35 percent of live births in the United States now occur outside of marriage, many couples do marry and stay married. But for how much longer?

Same-Sex Marriage Stalled

Gallup released new data on American support for same-sex marriage and the news is stale: there has been little change in public opinion over the last couple of years. On the other hand, if you think in terms of decades, then the last ten years has witnessed a decided shift in favor of including gay men and lesbians in legal marriage. No surprise that young Americans and Democrats are more likely to support same-sex marriage.

Pepperdine constitutional scholar, Doug Kmiec, seems to be looking for a way to accelerate public support for same-sex marriage. Recognizing that traditional religious values pose a significant obstacle, he has proposed that the state “create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay-call it a ‘civil license,’ said Kmiec,  author of an election-year book about President Obama: “Can a Catholic Support Him?’

 
“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” Kmiec said.  
 
But Princeton constitutional scholar, Robert George, argues that this plan would be a "terrible mistake" because it ignores the central role that marriage plays in the life of the nation.  

"The idea that the state would abandon its concern for the institution of marriage, that it would treat marriage as a purely religious matter, is I think a very bad one," said 

George. 
 
Marriage is "not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs," George told CNS. "It has profound social significance, public significance; it's a pre-political institution. It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It's the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured." 

George describes the family as "the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare." For this reason,  "the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well- being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake."

Same-Sex Marriage in New Hampshire

Though legal groups like the Becket Fund have long addressed the issue of same-sex marriage and the potential threat it poses to the freedom of religious individuals and institutions, recent developments in Vermont and New Hampshire suggest that political leaders are increasingly prepared to confront this challenge--before, not after same-sex marriage become legal in their state. Here's my recent post about Vermont's effort to balance he rights of same-sex couples and religious institutions opposing same-sex marriage.

Today in the New York Times, Peter Steinfels provides a  balanced report on this issue that is worth reading. Steinfels notes that New Hampshire has not moved forward on same-sex marriage because its governor wants more robust exemptions for religious groups and individuals who could not participate in ceremonies involving same-sex couples. New Hampshire state legislators have refused to accommodate the governor's demand and thus the bill has stalled. Steinfels reports:

"The movement toward legalizing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire has hit a bump. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, said last week that he would sign a same-sex marriage bill only if it included new language expanding protection for religious institutions that might object to same-sex marriage. On Wednesday, the state’s House of Representatives rejected that amendment. So for the moment, the matter is stalled in New Hampshire."

Steinfels looks at some of the key issues involved in the legal debate on same-sex marriage and religious freedom:  while some scholars insist there is little reason for concern, others underscore the broad range of potential conflicts, including the challenge posed to the values and mission of Catholic educational institutions. 

Here's The Becket Fund's response to the New Hampshire governor's decision.  

Same-Sex Marriage: Do Kids Need a Mom and Dad?

For years, Maggie Gallagher, the marriage expert and co-author, most recently, of The Case for Marriage, has predicted that legalizing same-sex marriage will weaken the standing of heterosexual marriage, and that possibility would be a disaster for children, who need a mother and a father. Her stance runs counter to the position of Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan who both argue that the inclusion of gay people will actually strengthen the status of marriage as an institution, as well as encourage the practice of virtue, such as self-control and fidelity, by gay people who submit to the moral and social obligations imposed by marriage vows.

Here's a post on  Sullivan's Daily Dish that embraces the view that marriage is morally challenging and worthwhile for any person, gay or straight. But this passage focuses on the two adults involved. What about children and their particular needs? 

Now Maggie takes a look at a recent survey of public opinion in Massachusetts five years after the legalization of same-sex marriage. She notes that significant public opposition to same-sex marriage remains quite strong. However, there has been a shift in perspective on one key issue:

"Massachusetts voters were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, "All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by their married mother and father." Seventy-six percent of voters agreed (66 percent strongly) while 21 percent disagreed (13 percent strongly). 

"A similar question was asked in a 2004 poll of Massachusetts residents. In 2004, 84 percent of Massachusetts residents agreed (33 percent strongly) and 16 percent disagreed (2 percent strongly). Thus, in the five years since gay marriage became a reality in Massachusetts, support for the idea that the ideal is a married mother and father dropped from 84 percent to 76 percent. The proportion who disagreed strongly increased nearly sevenfold, from 2 percent in 2004 to 13 percent in 2009."

The survey also questioned respondents about whether opponents to same-sex marriage felt free to publicly air their views.

"The NOM/MFI Massachusetts Marriage Poll thus documents a fairly significant level of apprehension among voters who oppose gay marriage about the consequences of speaking openly or acting on their belief that marriage means a husband and wife."

 

Carrie Prejean's Legacy

The verbal attacks showered upon Carrie Prejean, Miss California, following her expression of support for traditional marriage, have distrubed many Americans, even those who support same-sex marriage.  I was glad she was given a second chance and kept her title. Here's an interesting piece in The Public Discourse by Carson Holloway -- the author of The Way of Life: John Paul II and the Challenge of Liberal Modernity -- who explains the problem with personal attacks that take the place of a real debate. Holloway writes:

"One of the most troubling aspects of the same-sex marriage movement is the rhetorical strategy it so frequently employs: denunciation of its opponents. The most vocal and prominent advocates of same-sex marriage seem to prefer condemning those who disagree as bigots to refuting the arguments for preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Moreover, this tendency is found not just among partisan activists, where one might expect it even while lamenting it, but even among the voices of the most venerable institutions. 

"A case in point is Frank Rich’s New York Times column of April 18. His title—“The Bigots’ Last Hurrah”—says it all

Carrie Prejean wasn't on Holloway's radar, of course. But his point still applies in her case. He goes on to identify several "drawbacks" to attacking the messenger rather than addressing their message: 

"In the first place, it proves nothing." And in the second place, "it degrades our public discourse." That certainly was the case regarding the treatment of Carrie Prejean. Let's hope all the young people who stayed with the story got the message that personal attacks are the wrong way to win an argument.

Update: May 26--Just heard Rush Limbaugh weigh in on President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court. Limbaugh spoke about what he described as the gap between the president's public statements and his actual beliefs/future plans. Limbaugh argued that the president's left-wing supporters understand and accept the strategic necessity of this gap between public statements and actual beliefs/future plans. To demonstrate his point, the radio commentator noted a recent column by New York Times columnist Frank Rich that bemoaned the president's refusal to go out on a limb for gay rights activists who seek a national spokesman for the cause of same-sex marriage. Rich argued that

"Obama’s opposition to same-sex marriage is now giving cover to every hard-core opponent of gay rights, from the Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean to the former Washington mayor Marion Barry, each of whom can claim with nominal justification to share the president’s views.

"In reality, they don’t. Obama has long been, as he says, a fierce advocate for gay equality. The Windy City Times has reported that he initially endorsed legalizing same-sex marriage when running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996. The most common rationale for his current passivity is that his plate is too full. But the president has so far shown an impressive inclination both to multitask and to argue passionately for bedrock American principles when he wants to. Relegating fundamental constitutional rights to the bottom of the pile until some to-be-determined future seems like a shell game."

If Limbaugh and Rich are right, and Obama actually holds a different position on same-sex marriage than the average American would interpret from his public statements, there is considerable irony contained in Carrie Prejean's  defense: the President of the United States holds the save position on same-sex marriage and nobody called him names.