Proud, Relieved, and Heartened by the Rule of Justice

1 Comment(s) | Posted | by Mary Jo Iozzio |

Proud, Relieved, and Heartened by the Rule of Justice

Mary Jo Iozzio

 

 

People who have been relegated to the periphery of concern as members of minority communities, and others who have advocated with them, will remember the week of June 21-27, 2015 in the US with pride and relief. The week began in anticipation of the potential repeal of President Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act and rejection of a state’s recognition of same-sex marriages performed in and sanctioned by other states. The week ended with two decisions: 1) Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, affirming the Affordable Care Act (Syllabus, October Term 2014, No. 14-114. Argued March 4, 2015 –Decided June 25, 2015); and 2) Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, ordering that same-sex marriages be “deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex” (Syllabus, October Term 2014, No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015-Decided June 26, 2015).  

 

I am among those who have advocated for justice with people who live in poverty, who now have greater health security with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which mandates health insurance (revised through a tax), remains the law of the land. And I have advocated for justice with people whose commitment to fidelity is realized in non-heterosexist intimacy, who now have marriage equality before the law in all fifty states. I am relieved for greater access to healthcare for the previously uninsured 40+ million in the US, and I am proud for the legally binding nationwide protection against sodomy charges as well as the equal access to marriage licenses and wedding ceremonies now granted to same-sex couples. I am heartened by the triumph of justice in a nation founded on the principles of law, equality, and the common good.

 

Unfortunately, many in the US, including the USCCB, are grieving these decisions. I have heard complaints that Obamacare burdens taxpayers in the middle-income brackets, offers benefits to people receiving a lion’s share of benefits, and strong-arms institutions to provide their employees coverage that they deem objectionable. The media reports arguments on the intrusion of government in the private sector, while, for Catholics, private sector healthcare and education have been a mainstay of mission and ministry—especially to those who are most in need. Similarly, I have heard, even at this past Sunday’s liturgy, fears that same-sex marriages now allowed in civil law will jeopardize the religious/sacramental institution of marriage and have “adverse consequences” for all Catholic institutions and services to the most vulnerable. Neighboring dioceses in the US seem split in their response: some are following the lead of USCCB President Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, taking the argument of Chief Justice Roberts’ dissenting opinion on the ruling, who calls the decision a tragic error; some are silent; a few others remark cautiously as they recognize the justice inherent to the questions of human dignity and equal protection under the law. I am disheartened by these grievances, which seem to eschew the justice of distributing what is due to others as the common good requires. I am disheartened more by the silence of so many.

 

Regardless of the position one holds in these matters, it is critically important to speak up and be counted. Rightly, the USCCB is neither complacent nor complicit in the face of arguments the conference finds immoral and unjust. The conference’s voice provides a necessary sounding board and alternate perspective—inspired by the resources of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience—for many decisions the nation and its courts ponder. What is at stake now is whether those prelates who have been silent will take a stand, especially for those whose silence does not imply consent, and if the silent faithful in the pews will raise their voices in assent to or dissent from the USCCB position. This moment calls for continued discussion and dialogue so as to appreciate divergent positions, as well as to engage debate that refuses to settle silently with complacence or to cower with complicity. If the Church has learned anything about its members in recent years it is surely that diversity –able, cultural, gender, political, racial, sexual, and social diversity—reveals robustly the Body of Christ, the Church, in ways ever faithful and ever new. And just as surely the Church can consider the insights gained from diverse and context-based theologies even as Pope Francis encourages us to listen then see-judge-act.

 

As a start for dialogue and debate I suggest that each of us, committed to the Catholic faith and holding to the tradition in transition, take this moment as an opportunity to use all the skills our education has provided and reflect again on these and other questions the US Courts and an informed public ponder. In fact, this moment, like last year’s attention to the Extraordinary Synod and this year’s General Synod on the Family, demands our talents for the careful work of distinguishing the moral goods and values at stake in these matters. The opportunity is ripe with a challenge to step out of the comfort of our libraries, offices, and classrooms. Consider the range of subjects in which our colleagues have stepped out and invite us and the interested public to engage; for example, see Lisa Fullam’s “Civil Same-Sex Marriage: A Catholic Affirmation” (Bondings 2.0, 2014), Kristin Heyer’s “Synod on the Family, Transnational Families, and Women’s Labor” (Political Theology Today, 2014), Joseph Piccione’s “Tolerance as Moral Concept for Catholic Health Care Ministry in a Pluralist World” (Health Care Ethics USA, 2015), Dawn Nothwehr’s “Laudato Si and Me” (Catholics on Call, 2015), and Alex Mikulich’s “Legacy of Lynching Endures in ‘Death Belt’” (National Catholic Reporter, 2015). In solidarity with those who heed the call, let us go and do the same.

 

Comments

  1. Joe Zalot's avatar
    Joe Zalot
    | Permalink
    Dear Mary Jo,

    I love and respect you as both a colleague and friend, however I have to respectfully disagree with you and “take the side” of the USCCB in terms of my reaction to the US Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision on the redefinition of marriage. I personally am very distressed by the decision, particularly in light of the consequences I believe it will have for society. I could offer an extended discussion of the many reasons for why I believe this decision is flawed, but since you specifically address the issue of justice in your essay I will limit myself to two short reflections on this topic.

    You focus your support for the redefinition of marriage on justice, and to be sure there are important justice issues related to the overall marriage debate. One question I have, yet one that I have not seen discussed very much, is what about justice to children? Throughout human history, marriage as a social institution - and only later as a religious and legal institution - has been ordered to the creation and raising of children. The reason for this is that that children need a constant and consistent presence of their biological mother and father during their development, and heterosexual marriage both provides for and seeks to assure this necessary presence. In fact, we know from the social sciences that children who are not raised by both their biological parents within a fully-committed, life-long relationship (marriage) do not fare as well as those who are (I should note that there is on-going debate on this topic). Catholicism, along with many other religious and philosophical traditions, maintains that as a matter of justice (“rendering to others what is owed to them, what they deserve”), every child has a right to be created, gestated, born, and raised by their biological parents. The federal courts’ decisions to redefine marriage, culminating with Obergefell, essentially “de-link” biological parenthood from marriage and thus negate any notion of a child’s right to enjoy the fruits of a life-long relationship with both of its biological parents.

    A second justice issue that needs to be much more explicitly considered is conscience protection, specifically that extending legal sanction to same-sex unions has already forced people who oppose it based on ethical, theological, or legal reasons to provide services against their will, or close their business. Catholic Charities of both Massachusetts and Illinois are prevented by their respective states from providing adoption services because these organizations will not place children with same-sex couples. The owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop (CO), Elene Photography (NM), Beall Mansion B&B (IL), and Arlene’s Flowers (WA) have religious (and other) objections to participating in same-sex ceremonies, yet they have been told by their states to either comply or be fined (some have closed). Sportscaster Craig James (Fox Sports Southwest) had his employment contract rescinded and Brendan Eich was removed from his position as CEO of Mozilla because of past actions supporting marriage between one man and one woman. We see today in Canada what is happening when people speak critically of homosexuality and/or the redefinition of marriage. These realities should give us great pause. In the days since Obergefell I have heard interviews with individuals who make very clear that their next goal is to use the courts to wipe away any legal (read religious liberty) protections for those who disagree with them. No matter where one is on the marriage question, this emerging reality should scare us all. Opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples have been consistently told we must be “open-minded” and must “respect the beliefs” of others. This is a two-way street. Those who support redefining marriage must now extend the same courtesies to those who disagree with them. Again, this is an important matter of justice as well.

    In closing, Mary Jo, I want to repeat that I love and respect you very much as a person and that our disagreement on this issue in no way diminishes this. However, the US Supreme Court’s ruling will have long-lasting (and I believe negative) consequences for our nation. I think the USCCB got it right.

    Joe Zalot
    Cincinnati, OH

Leave a Comment

Nonprofit Web Design and Development by New Media Campaigns