Religion & Law

I really appreciated both Russ and Amy's attempt to dissect some of the different tensions running through our debates.  I find this more nuanced look at our complex debates much more helpful than attempts to fit us into the categories appropriate for American politics.

I'm particularly intrigued by Amy's "Generational" and "Genre" categories.  On "Genres", personally, I like the fact that we have these different genres.  I like Michael Perry's charts and articles as much as I like Bob Arujo's complex essays.  Both have their place, both are styles that might sometimes be appropriate for the information being conveyed, and both might be what the individual poster has the time and inclination to devote that that particular topic. 

I think the "Generational" category is fascinating, as well.  The comment from the reader who clearly identifies as a "younger" Catholic was illuminating.  I'm way too old to consider myself a "younger" Catholic, and I don't feel old enough yet to consider myself an "elder" (most days), but this reader's comment captured precisely one of the tensions I sometimes feel in my efforts to work on articulating the "new feminism" John Paul II' called for in  Evangelium Vitae para. 99.  A friend recently expressed to me some frustration that so many of the women identifying themselves with this effort seem to be ignoring the works of earlier Catholic feminists.  She said something like, "This has all already been done before.  Why are you all trying to redo it?"  What I believe many of my friends engaged in the "new feminism" project (many of whom are not really all that young) think is that many of these earlier efforts were focused more on (in the words of Amy's reader) "reconsidering settled teachings" (such as all-male priesthood), and we are simply more interested in "evangelizing the culture."  It's not that the reconsideration of these settled teachings isn't perhaps appropriate and important, it's just not of primary interest to us.