Friday, October 2, 2020

Red Mass October 1, 2020 video

At the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist in Milwaukee Wisconin.

Friday, September 25, 2020

Is Christianity True? The Existence of God, the Discoveries of Science, and a Closing Argument for the Resurrection.

An essay by Judge William Griesbach prepared for the annual reception and dinner which had been planned to follow the yesterday's Red Mass of the St. Thomas More Society of Green Bay.

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Annual Red Mass and award ceremony October 1st



We regret that we will be unable to host the traditional reception and dinner following the Red Mass, but hope and expect to return to our traditional events in 2021.

Friday, September 4, 2020

Augustine, Lawyers & the Lost Virtue of Humility

Bruce P. Frohnen at the Catholic University Law Review.
Abstract

"The leading edge of legal scholarship and practice in recent decades has evinced a commitment to progressive politics at the expense of constitutional governance, the rule of law, and justice understood as vindication of the reasonable expectations of both the public and the parties to any given case or controversy. This article argues that renewed understanding of the virtue of humility, rooted in a genuine concern to do good according to one’s abilities, rights, and duties, is essential to the maintenance of decency in the legal profession and society as a whole. Such virtue is allowed, if not required, by existing rules and procedures, especially those encapsulated in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). It is undermined by lawyerly pride in the capacity of particular lawyers to determine what is good for society and pursue it through social activism masquerading as client service."
Recommended Citation: Bruce P. Frohnen, Augustine, Lawyers & the Lost Virtue of Humility, 69 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (2020).

Friday, August 7, 2020

The Liturgy the Basis of Social Regeneration

Dom Virgil Michel, OSB, originally in a 1935 issue of Orate, Frates, republished at Adoremus Bulletin.
"'It is true, indeed,' says our encyclical [Quadragesimo Anno], 'that a just freedom of action should be left to individual citizens and families.' Hence this Collectivism is wrong in fact and principle. To quote again: 'Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so too it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of the right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies…. Of its very nature the true aim of all social activity should be to help individual members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them.'"

Monday, February 24, 2020

The International Religious Freedom Act: Non-State Actors and Freedom From Sovereign Government Control

Robert C. Blitt at Marquette Law Review, 103 Marq. L. Rev. 547 (Volume 103, Issue 2, Winter 2019)

Abstract

"The International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) recently underwent its most significant amendment process since being introduced in 1997. Among the major changes, sponsors of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (Wolf Act) proposed adding a new framework to IRFA intended to address the phenomenon of non-state actors (NSAs) violating the right to freedom of religion or belief. The impetus for this new mandate, according to the bill’s sponsors, flowed from the realization that NSAs such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) were wielding religious intolerance to commit 'some of the most egregious religious freedom violations.'

"Despite its findings that violent NSAs represented an expanding force responsible for exposing a significant percentage of the global population to severe abuses of freedom of religion and belief, the Wolf Act faced an uphill battle in Congress that necessitated significant compromises to secure its passage. As a result, the final bill modified or altogether failed to enshrine certain measures originally proposed to address NSAs. In their place, the Wolf Act instituted an ambiguous statutory definition for those NSAs that would be subject to scrutiny under IRFA. Furthermore, while the new 'Entity of Particular Concern' (EPC) designation for NSAs identified as engaging in 'particularly severe violations of religious freedom' appeared to mirror IRFA’s existing mandatory sanctions regime for 'Countries of Particular Concern,' it fell far short by triggering only a suggestion that the President 'take specific actions, when practicable, to address [EPC] violations of religious freedom.'

"As this new chapter for IRFA enters its third year, this Article will demonstrate that the NSA-related provisions present significant challenges for the U.S. government. To begin the task of fleshing out the nature and impact of these challenges, the Article focuses on one element of IRFA’s NSA definition—namely, the requirement that an NSA be 'outside the control of a sovereign government.' After addressing IRFA’s NSA definition and providing an overview of its implementation to date, this Article turns to a critical appraisal of how the state control requirement has been implemented to date. The Article closes with several suggestions aimed at clarifying definitions and institutional responsibilities to repair current practice and reinvigorate IRFA’s promise of promoting and protecting the right of all individuals to freedom of religion or belief.