Just added to our religious-freedom symposium: Cathleen Kaveny’s response to the bishops’ latest statement on religious liberty:

“Our First, Most Cherished Liberty” reflects the bishops’ deep ambivalence about whether they prefer the protection afforded a religious minority in the United States or whether they want to be an influential force in the moral mainstream. The first option will likely require them to accept some marginalization, while the second exposes them to uncomfortable pushback from opposing forces. Their statement suggests they want to have it both ways, but that outcome seems highly unlikely, at least within the American legal and political framework.

And today, Michael Moreland:

I read parts of “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty” as a call for a renewed appreciation of the importance of institutional pluralism in a liberal society. The disagreement over such subjects as the HHS contraception mandate is many things—a debate within American constitutional law, a debate within American Catholicism about the legacy of Humanae vitae—but it is, in my view, foremost a debate over whether and how the coercive power of the state should be employed against the institutions of civil society. Catholicism (and especially American Catholicism) is a peculiarly institutional form of religious faith, with social-service agencies, hospitals, and schools at every level. Catholic institutions are, not surprisingly, on the front lines of battles between state regulation and church autonomy.

Read the rest right here. And come back tomorrow to read the final part of the symposium, by William Galston.

In his trial on charges of criminally endangering children, Monsignor William Lynn portrayed himself as a man of conscience who quietly tried to help victims despite the indifference of his superiors.

Maryclaire Dale of The Associated Press summarized his defense this way:

A Roman Catholic church official is being unfairly prosecuted for the sins of the church and the rogue conduct of predator-priests, a defense lawyer said Thursday as he asked jurors in a groundbreaking trial to acquit his client.

“You have witnessed evil in this courtroom. You have seen the dark side of the church. You’ve seen grown men come into this courtroom and weep because they were abused,” said lawyer Thomas Bergstrom. “And now, the sins of all these fathers that he laid bare – that he laid bare – are now laid at his feet.”

Lynn maintained that the prosecutors’ prized exhibit – a secret list of 35 suspected pedophile priests – was actually evidence of his innocence. He said he drew the list up  to call attention to the problem; Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua ordered it destroyed. (A copy survived.) No wonder the jurors, who resume deliberation in Philadelphia on Monday, asked for it right away.

Many  scoff at this defense. But my experience in covering scores of trials is that, regardless of the verdict, the truth of what happened usually falls someplace between the prosecution and defense versions. And so, what if Monsignor Lynn is right? Read the rest of this entry »

After weeks of silence, the board of the LCWR today issued a response to the Vatican crackdown on their organization and they signaled that they weren’t going to go quietly:

Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.

The LCWR board says that its leaders will travel to Rome for a June 12 meeting with CDF chief Cardinal William Levada and Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain, who is acting as Rome’s point man in the LCWR makeover.

In my piece at Religion News Service, I note that while the nuns have no ecclesiastical authority to wield in the negotiations, the Vatican is not enjoying a great stretch, credibility-wise, and the attempted crackdown has not been popular among U.S. Catholics.

The LCWR’s board statement also makes a point about the outpouring of support the sisters have received, and concludes:

As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.

Zing. The Vatican seems to have taken note of the popular support for the nuns as well. The other day, Pope Benedict XVI praised the work of the U.S. nuns, and in an essay posted today at America magazine, Archbishop Sartain goes on at great length about the longstanding service of women religious in the U.S.

Sartain reiterates the Vatican’s concerns but strikes a generally positive and diplomatic note, it seems to me. The archbishop doubled down on that tone in a statement issued at the end of the day in response to the LCWR statement:

Both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and I are wholeheartedly committed to dealing with the important issues raised by the Doctrinal Assessment and the LCWR Board in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, integrity and fidelity to the Church’s faith. I look forward to our next meeting in Rome in June as we continue to collaborate in promoting the important work of the LCWR for consecrated life in the United States.

The Holy See and the Bishops of the United States are deeply proud of the historic and continuing contribution of women religious – a pride that has been echoed by many in recent weeks.

America also has a response to Sartain by Christine Firer Hinze, a professor of ethics at Fordham University, who wrote that “the dangers of talking past one another, stalemate or alienation are high.”

Finally, I would finish my recommended reading list by pointing to Joshua McElwee’s interview with LCWR president Sr. Pat Farrell, who said that in raising doctrinal and theological issues the nuns in her organization have also been reflecting a wider conversation among Catholics in the church — one that often finds no other outlet in officialdom.

Sr. Pat also had interesting things to say to Laurie Goodstein at the NYTimes:

“Even large sectors of the church itself have legitimate concern and want to continue to talk about the place of women in the church, and rightful equality between men and women,” said Sister Farrell, who is a member of the leadership team of the Sisters of St. Francis, of Dubuque, Iowa. “So if that is called radical feminism, then a lot of men and women in the church, far beyond us, are guilty of that.”

All in all, I wonder if the pushback by the LCWR combined with the popular support for the nuns and the Vatican’s travails — and a genuine commitment to a spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation — might help defuse the tensions much as happened with the wider, parallel Vatican investigation of religious life in women’s communities.

Don’t miss the second part of our series on the U.S. Catholic bishops’ most recent statement on religious liberty. From Mark Silk:

Given the dubious argumentation and the high rhetorical gloss of “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” I confess some uncertainty as to whether it is a statement of principle or merely a prudential document. If the bishops were truly concerned about religious liberty as customarily embraced, they ought to have given some attention to Free Exercise claims that would permit behaviors of which they disapprove, such as polygamy. They would also have taken note of Employment Division v. Smith, which has done more than any other recent Supreme Court decision to restrict religious liberty in the liberal sense by limiting Free Exercise claims to laws that are not neutral or generally applicable.

And the third, by Douglas Laycock:

Do the bishops mean that the requirement that health-insurance plans cover contraception must be repealed? Or do they mean the Affordable Care Act must be repealed? They do not say, and given the widespread calls for repeal of the whole act, ambiguity on that point is inexcusable. Would the bishops really deprive millions of Americans of health care rather than seek an exemption from the one implementation rule that deprives Catholic institutions of religious liberty? I hope not.

Read the rest here.