Following today’s decision that Hobby Lobby would not be required to provide birth control to its employees, I did a google image search for “hobby lobby supreme court.” A few images came up from protestors on both sides of the case. In one image, a group of women hold up signs saying, “NO BOSSES IN MY BEDROOM.”
You might be surprised to discover that these women did not mean to show their support for the Christian craft store. I suspect they were confused (as we all are from time to time, especially when we’re carrying posters). Regardless of their intent, perhaps both Hobby Lobby and its past critics can come together in appreciating one consequence of today’s decision: one more boss is out of the bedroom. Continue reading →
I recently attended a conference on women in the church. During one panel, two young Catholic women sought to present the Church’s teachings on women and gender through an orthodox perspective, offering advice and ideas on the roles of women in the Church. One woman stated that she would not be discussing the issue of women’s ordination, as it was not germane to her paper. Her co-panelist did the same, quoting Pope Francis’s statement that the door to women’s ordination “is closed”. Continue reading →
In the early nineteenth century, the United States was seeking to establish a reliable system of property ownership. This was particularly difficult, given that much land was still inhabited by native Indian tribes, and these tribes attempted to give land grants that often conflicted with grants given by the United States government. An 1823 Supreme Court case called Johnson v. M’Intosh involved such a conflict, and the case was in part resolved by the American adoption of a longstanding European principle: that “discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest”. That is, a nation may claim land as its own when that nation has either discovered that land or conquered its peoples. Continue reading →
A male friend of mine recently had an argument with a woman about legal abortion. He opposed, and she favored. As often happens in such disputes, she told him, more or less, “You aren’t a woman, so you don’t have a right to argue about this. Just won’t understand, and you can’t understand what this is like for a woman.” Continue reading →
No act has greater public consequences than the act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Few greater fictions exist than the idea that such an act is a purely private act. Continue reading →
When I started law school, I expected to get into all kinds of contentious debates. I do hold, after all, pretty extreme views. I agree with Catholicism’s teachings on… well… everything – abortion, birth control, marriage, etc., etc., etc. I always suspected that I would become a source of controversy. I never suspected I would become a zoo animal. Continue reading →
The following column was published in the Irish Rover on Thursday, March 20, 2014.
On February 12, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held an oral argument in Notre Dame’s case against the HHS mandate. Among the more surprising moments was Judge Posner’s question to Notre Dame attorney Matthew Kairis, asking whether the use of birth control was a mortal or a venial sin. Even more surprising was the admission of ignorance by Kairis, a graduate of Notre Dame’s Program of Liberal Studies, followed by Judge Posner’s answer that it is a mortal sin.
There are two ways you can end a war: you can either destroy the enemy, or you can convert the enemy. In almost every way, the former will be easier, faster, and more obvious. The latter is rarely chosen by culture warriors for one reason: within the context of cultures wars, it is nearly impossible. Continue reading →