Melania Trump’s recent attire for a visit with Pope Francis has garnered a bit of controversy, as she joins her husband on his first foreign tour as president of the United States.

While visiting the Vatican Wednesday, both the first lady and first daughter Ivanka Trump adhered to the traditional dress code for a private papal audience at the Vatican.

Melania donned a mantilla, the lace veil traditionally worn in the Roman Catholic Church, and honored the nearby nation of Italy in a demure long-sleeved black dress by Italian fashion label Dolce & Gabanna. Ivanka dressed similarly, wearing a more voluminous sheer veil.

Pope Francis appears to have left a mark on Trump. “Thank you. I won’t forget what you said,” Trump tells the Pope https://t.co/VpBEp8XUPP pic.twitter.com/T796zQXLfH

— CNN (@CNN) May 24, 2017

“Per Vatican protocol, women who have an audience with the Pope are required to wear long sleeves, formal black clothing, and a veil to cover the head,” Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s communications director, told CNN.

But when asked why Melania wore a veil at the Vatican but eschewed a headscarf during her visit days earlier in Saudi Arabia, a conservative Muslim country where women are expected to wear head coverings, Grisham said there was no request or requirement for her attire from that country.

Melania isn’t the first first lady to forgo a headscarf in the Middle East, but her decision, however, directly contradicts her husband’s criticism of former first lady Michelle Obama, who chose not to wear one during her visit in 2015. President Donald Trump was quick to chastise the move at the time, tweeting:

Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2015

Obama also wore a black veil and a black dress when she met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican in 2009.

Despite foregoing the headscarf, Melania still received rave reviews from local Saudi Arabian press for her “classy” and “conservative” outfit.

According to CNN, Melania prepared extensively, with the help of State Department officials, on the proper protocol and customs for each of the stops on the foreign trip.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversy After Melania Trump Covers Hair at the Vatican, But Not in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Law Street.

At a Sistine Chapel mass on Sunday, Pope Francis baptized 28 babies. Understandably, this took a while, and as some of the babies in the chapel started crying, the pope encouraged mothers to breastfeed and not be scared of judgment. Acknowledging the crying babies, he joked that the concert had begun and that Jesus did the same when he was born. “And if your children are crying because they are hungry, then go ahead and feed them, just as Mary breastfed Jesus,” he added.

The Pope encourages women to breastfeed during a Sistine Chapel service interrupted by babies crying. pic.twitter.com/tbuc2E7jtU

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) January 9, 2017

The pope did something similar at the same event two years ago, when as many as 33 babies were baptized. To many women, this was an encouraging and welcome act of empathy.

Simply put, breastfeeding should be part of daily life around the globe. It shouldn’t be such a big deal. Glad Pope Francis sees this too. https://t.co/xiTgmxG4j7

— Kate Maxwell (@Kaker82) January 8, 2017

And for some women in other countries, this wasn’t news or controversial at all.

@AFP Pope telling women to breastfeed even in church…what makes this news ? In my part of the world, we have always done it. No news here.

— E. W. Gichuhi (@GichuhiEmma) January 8, 2017

Pope Francis has gained a reputation as a modern and empathic pope with some controversial opinions. He tries to behave like a “normal guy,” by paying his own bills at hotels, joking around with his cardinals, and staying in a two-room apartment instead of the papal palace. But even though he is the head of the Catholic Church and his words should be recognized, there are many examples of women in America facing discrimination for attempting to breastfeed in a church.

Mary Kate Dempsey was nursing her baby in a church in Michigan when an usher asked her to leave because her behavior was “inappropriate.” Another woman had the same experience in Georgia. And parenting blogger Mary Fischer listed the church as one place where moms need to be discreet with their breastfeeding. She suggests covering the breast—and with that, the baby—with a piece of cloth, which many babies hate.

It is clear that both the church and our society have a long way to go until breastfeeding is seen as a completely natural part of everyday life. But the pope’s words hopefully go a long way.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pope Francis to Women: It’s Okay to Breastfeed in Church appeared first on Law Street.

Pope Francis called on the media to seek transparency and truth in the wake of an election cycle influenced heavily by fake news–reports that the pope found to be scandal-minded and sinful.

The leader of the Catholic Church compared the spreading of disinformation to an unhealthy obsession with feces in an interview with the Belgian Catholic weekly, Tertio. The pope said:

I believe that the media should be very clear, very transparent, and not fall prey–without offense, please–to the sickness of coprophilia, which is always wanting to communicate scandal, to communicate ugly things, even though they may be true.

The unusual term, coprophilia, is a medical term used to describe arousal from excrement or feces.

Pope Francis used the example to criticize the media’s pleasure in spreading such “disinformation,” and said it would be a sin for a journalist’s purpose to be anything other than educating the public.

“Disinformation is probably the greatest damage that the media can do, as opinion is guided in one direction, neglecting the other part of the truth,” Pope Francis explained.

The pope commented on the temptations to raise slanderous claims, but went on to say that every person has the right to a good reputation.

“[The] communications media have their temptations. They can be tempted by calumny, and therefore used to slander, to sully people, especially in the world of politics,” the pope said.

Wednesday’s interview heavily referenced the global debate over the surge of fake news websites. According to some observers, the abundance of fake news during the 2016 presidential election could have swayed the election in favor of Donald Trump.

Shockingly enough, the pope is no stranger to the fake news cycle.

A story that circulated earlier this year reported that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump for President of the United States. The article was completely fabricated and proven to be false.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pope Francis Calls Fake News a Sin, Compares it to Fascination With Feces appeared first on Law Street.

At the conclusion of the yearlong Jubilee of Mercy on Monday, Pope Francis released an apostolic letter that granted all priests the ability to absolve the “grave sin” of abortion. The letter, signed Sunday and released Monday, is called Misericordia et Misera (Mercy and Poor), and includes a variety of papal meditations on mercy. In regard to his instructions on abortion, Pope Francis writes:

I wish to restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life. In the same way, however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. May every priest, therefore, be a guide, support and comfort to penitents on this journey of special reconciliation.

According to canon law, abortion results in an automatic excommunication from the church. Only a bishop can absolve the “reserved sin” of abortion. With the letter, priests have the permanent ability to absolve abortions, something that was previously assigned exclusively to bishops, representing a break from tradition, widening the doors for the Catholic Church’s 1.2 billion members worldwide, and expanding upon Pope Francis’ message of mercy.

The letter also called for a World Day of the Poor every November moving forward, representing a “day to help communities and each of the baptized to reflect on how poverty is at the very heart of the Gospel,” and “genuine form of new evangelization which can renew the face of the Church as She perseveres in her perennial activity of pastoral conversion and witness to mercy.”

May the balm of mercy reach everyone, both believers and those far away, as a sign that the Kingdom of God is already present in our midst!

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) November 20, 2016

Pope Francis’ decision to allow priests to absolve abortions is not without precedent. In 2000, another Holy Year, Pope John Paul II allowed priests to do the same. Pope Francis’ decision to make permanent the decree of allowing priests to absolve abortions underscores his commitment to adapting the church’s message to a changing world.

Now is the time “to unleash the creativity of mercy,” Pope Francis writes in the letter, and to “promote a culture of mercy based on the rediscovery of encounter with others, a culture in which no one looks at another with indifference or turns away from the suffering of our brothers and sisters.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Apostolic Letter, Pope Francis Allows Priests to Absolve Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

When Pope Francis talked to reporters during his flight from Sweden to Rome on Tuesday, he said he believes women will be banned forever from becoming priests in the Catholic Church. He had been in Sweden, one of the world’s most secular countries, to visit the very small Catholic community that is mostly made up of immigrants, and celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Progressive Sweden has the world’s first lesbian bishop, Eva Brunne of the Church of Sweden, and allows same sex marriage for everyone.

Pope Francis has worked toward making the Catholic Church less judgmental and more open-minded when it comes to LGBT rights and did set up a commission in August to look into the concept of female deacons. But he’s not open to the concept of female priests.

“I want to see women priests in the Catholic Church and I know that there are many Catholic women who are well-educated and would be excellent priests,” said Sweden’s first female Lutheran Archbishop, Antje Jackelén to AFP during the Pope’s visit.

When leaving the country, a female Swedish journalist asked him whether he thought the Catholic Church should allow women as priests in the future. His answer was: “St. Pope John Paul II had the last clear word on this and it stands, this stands.” When the journalist asked again, “But forever, forever? Never, never?” he answered that he believes it is going “in that direction.”

Sweden won’t be impressed – Pope says he believes ban on female priests is forever https://t.co/hlaqCEhbp8 via @ReutersUK

— Alistair Scrutton (@aliscrut) November 1, 2016

The Catholic Church had always had the tradition of male-only priests, but in 1994 Pope John Paul put down in writing that women are not welcome in the priesthood, which is the document Francis was referring to. The common argument against female priests is that Jesus only ordained men as his apostles. But opponents of this view say that was only because he was following the customs of that time.

I don’t have a nuanced view on this. Just deep disappointment. Pope Francis: Ban on Female Priests Likely to Endure https://t.co/UaSWLtsnWr

— Joel Garza (@JoelRGarza) November 1, 2016

Many people who see Pope Francis as the liberal Pope who has modernized the church are disappointed with his statement and hope that a future pope will feel differently.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pope Says Women Will be Banned from Catholic Priesthood Forever appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Senator Ben Sasse’s Epic Facebook Rant

Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) went on a pretty intense Facebook tirade against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on Facebook, calling for a third party candidate to join the scuffle. Part of the “never Trump” brigade, Sasse also took to Twitter to voice his displeasure with his party’s seemingly inevitable nominee.

Thought experiment: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader to focus on 70% solutions for the next four years as a caretaker? An adult?

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 5, 2016

Joe Paterno May Have Known About Jerry Sandusky’s Abuse in 1976

Newly released court documents about the Jerry Sandusky abuse scandal have sparked outrage. The Penn State University is suing its former insurance company in an attempt to determine who is liable to pay the victims of Sandusky’s abuse. These papers revealed that “PMA claims … in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno, that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky.” That’s a horrific 12 years before the previous earliest-known allegation of abuse against Sandusky.

Trump’s Epic Fail of a Cinco de Mayo Tweet

Trump sent out quite a whopper of a Cinco de Mayo tweet yesterday:

Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://t.co/ufoTeQd8yA pic.twitter.com/k01Mc6CuDI

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 5, 2016

There are many, many horrifying things that can be said about this tweet, but the flawless Samantha Bee summed it up perfectly with her own taco bowl pic, captioned: “The best taco bowls are made by hardworking immigrants who don’t like being called rapists by a rich prick. I love inauthentic Mexican food!”

Tow Trucks Get Political

A tow truck driver who supports Donald Trump for president refused to provide service to a woman with a Bernie Sanders sticker on her car in Greenville, South Carolina. After seeing her sticker, as well as a Sanders lawn sign, he claimed that “every business dealing in recent history that I’ve had with a socialist-minded person, I haven’t got paid.” Then, he encouraged her to call the government to tow her car, and drove off. Needless to say, I think we all know how Bernie would react:

Pope Francis Gives Tough Speech on Migrants in Europe

Pope Francis just gave a pretty hard-hitting speech about the treatment of migrants in Europe. He was speaking as the recipient of the Charlemagne prize for his work on behalf of European solidarity, and asked: “What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom?” After that speech, we’ll have to see if Europe can get its act together.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Friday, May 6 appeared first on Law Street.

Pope Francis has received accolades from around the world regarding his message of tolerance and his commitment to opening the Catholic church to populations that were historically excluded. However, there is a shadow hanging over his tenure that has yet to be fully addressed: decades of sexual abuse scandals involving Catholic priests that have come to light over the past decade.

Pope Francis has publicly condemned the perpetrators but has also been criticized for not doing more to renounce the culture of turning a blind eye to sexual abuse. This weekend, one of Pope Francis’ most trusted advisers, Cardinal George Pell, former Archbishop of Sydney, was asked to reckon with the consequences of participating in that culture. In Rome, Pell is known as the Secretariat of the Economy and has led sweeping reforms of the traditional Vatican system but in the city of Ballarat, Australia, Pell has become a household name for a much more sinister reason.

Pell provided testimony in Rome this weekend regarding an alleged cover-up of a sexual abuse scandal in Australia. Victims of clerical sexual assault claim that Pell knowingly let pedophile priests escape legal punishment and continue to assault numerous children throughout Australia. One of the most chilling examples of abuse comes from Ballarat, a town where dozens of survivors have stepped forward over the past five years, after decades of abuse. Read on for an introduction to the Ballarat abuse scandal.

Abuse in Ballarat

Ballarat is a city in the state of Victoria, Australia. As of May 2015, 14 Catholic priests have been accused of sexual abuse. Survivors provided testimony in 2015, citing abuse that spanned from the 1960s to the 1990s. Multiple abuse victims from Ballarat committed suicide before they ever saw their day in court, but those who did presented names, dates, and precise details about their abusers. The most prolific offender was Gerald Ridsdale, who was accused of over one hundred acts of abuse. Ridsdale pleaded guilty in 2006 to 35 charges of assault but many victims felt that his sentence of a maximum of thirteen years in jail was too lenient.

Cardinal Pell has been accused of moving Ridsdale from parish to parish for two decades rather than reporting his activities to law enforcement or removing him from the Church entirely. David Ridsdale, who was abused by his uncle, has stated that he attempted to speak about his abuse in 1993 but was silenced by Cardinal Pell. After David Ridsdale reported his uncle, Pell allegedly replied “I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet.” Pell has stated that he never bribed either Ridsdale or his family, but that accusation was bolstered by testimony from another witness who cited Pell brushing off a report of sexual abuse at St. Patrick’s College. The Royal Commission that is overseeing the abuse cases in Ballarat has discovered that abuse committed by several other priests was reported to their superiors but each time, the abuse was ignored and the priests were either moved to different parishes or sent on “treatment” trips.

Pell was summoned to give evidence in Melbourne earlier this year, but his legal team declared he was not healthy enough to fly and instead organized a video-conference from Rome. Upon realizing that Pell would not be coming to Australia, a national crowd-funding campaign was launched to fly Australian sexual abuse victims to Rome to speak with Pell face-to-face. The campaign raised over $200,000 in a matter of days, which paid for the travel expenses of 14 victims and their advisors. The stage was set for a significant confrontation between the upper echelon of the Catholic hierarchy and the survivors whose stories were denied for most of their lives.

Controversial Coverage 

The controversy over Pell has led to significant rifts in public discourse. Columnist Andrew Bolt, who calls himself a close friend of Pell, wrote a piece earlier this month claiming that Pell is an innocent man who has become the target of a national “witch hunt.” Bolt argues that public opinion has turned harshly against Pell, who he considers to be an advocate for sexual abuse victims. Bolt describes how Pell has met with abuse victims in the past and how, in 1996, Pell founded the Melbourne Response initiative, which was tasked with investigating sexual abuse allegations made against priests.

However, questions have been raised about how independent the Melbourne Response has been during its tenure, especially after a controversial “60 Minutes” interview (featured below) that explored Pell’s involvement in the Ballarat cases. Bolt also accused reporter Lucie Morris-Marr of launching a smear campaign against Pell after she reported that police were investigating reports that Pell himself had abused children. Morris-Marr defended her story, arguing that she published the piece after a thorough investigation with no intention of libel. Multiple news outlets picked up Morris-Marr’s piece, which led the Victoria police to announce a crackdown on leaking information to the media, even though the police have not formally acknowledged if they are investigating Pell for abuse. Cardinal Pell denied the allegations, but as press attention shifts towards his testimony in Rome this weekend, they may resurface in the coming days.

Pell has not yet been formally charged with obstructing justice or failing to report abuse but there are already calls for his resignation. Victims of the Ballarat abuse scandal have already named the priests who assaulted them and some, such as Ridsdale, have already received sentences, but many argue that the rift between these survivors and the Catholic Church will not be truly healed unless Pell is asked to accept responsibility for his failure to remove these priests.

Other Vatican Controversies Over Abuse

Ballarat is not the only parish where reports of sexual abuse have allegedly been swept under the rug. In 2011, a 1997 letter from Vatican leadership was released to the public.  The letter told Irish bishops not to report suspicions of child abuse to the police, but instead to handle abuse as they saw fit under canonical religious law. The letter came as a response to a 1996 initiative of “mandatory reporting” that Irish priests enacted to identify sexual abuse within the church.

There is also criticism over a recently released Vatican document that holds that even though bishops should be aware of local legal procedures, they are not obligated to report clerical child abuse to law enforcement. The document was part of training program for new bishops and was written by Tony Anatrella, a consultant to the Pontifical Council on the Family. The Guardian reports that

While acknowledging that ‘the church has been particularly affected by sexual crimes committed against children,’ the training guide emphasizes statistics that show the vast majority of sexual assaults against children are committed within the family and by friends and neighbors, not other authority figures.

Anatrella’s training document was published just a few days after Peter Saunders, a British victim of abuse serving on the papal advisory commission on clerical sexual assault, was forced out of his position via a vote of no confidence. The vote of no confidence came after Saunders was accused of being difficult to work with and too familiar with the media. The commission announced publicly that Saunders would be taking a leave of absence but Saunders told the press that he had no knowledge of that decision and that he refuses to step down unless Pope Francis officially asks him to. Saunders has been critical of the commission since it was formed two years ago, but as one of two survivors appointed to the commission by Pope Francis, his presence was considered an important victory for victims who want to participate in the discussion. His removal, whether or not it gets Pope Francis’ stamp of approval, may be viewed as a significant step backward in creating open dialogue and building trust between abuse survivors and the bureaucracy of the church.

Conclusion

The sexual abuse that Catholic priests engaged in for decades around the world is a heinous crime not only in its nature but because of the sheer scale on which it was committed. It is not only the priests who abused children who must be held accountable in court, it is also their superiors who ignored allegations of sexual assault over extended periods of time. The last decade has seen a sharp rise in victims coming forward, sharing their stories and formally testifying in court about their experiences, which will hopefully hold the Church accountable for its actions. As Pope Francis tries to usher in a new brand of Catholicism, investigations like the Ballarat case serve as a constant reminder of exactly how much reform is still needed to redress the past crimes. Pell’s testimony in Rome this weekend may not have deviated from the statements he made last year during the investigation conducted by Australia’s Royal Commission but the attention that the conference has garnered has put Pell in the spotlight, not just in Australia, but on the world stage.

Resources

New York Times: After Criticism, Pope Francis Confronts Priestly Sexual Abuse

New York Times: Vatican Letter Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy

LA Times: Catholic Sex Abuse Hearing Will Take Place in the Dead of Night in a Hotel in Rome

The Age: Ballarat Abuse Survivors Head to Rome to see Cardinal George Pell Give Evidence

The Age: Victoria Police Refer Leak of Investigation into Cardinal George Pell to IBAC

ABC: Child Abuse Sex Inquiry: Bishop Paul Bird Denies as Many as 14 Ballarat Priests Involved in Abuse as Hearings Wrap Up

The Guardian: George Pell Tried to Bribe Abuse Victim, Royal Commission Hears

The Guardian: Ballarat Priests Involved in Child Sex Abuse sSent on ‘Treatment’ Trips, inquiry told

FT: Australia Clerical Sex Abuse Victims Travel to Rome

Herald Sun: Cardinal George Pell is the Victim of a Vicious Witch Hunt

News.Com.Au: 60 Minutes Reporter Tara Brown Digs Deep into George Pell’s Melbourne Response

Reuters: Critic of Vatican Refuses to Step Down from Sex Abuse Commission

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Reckoning in Rome: A Look at the Ballarat Abuse Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

Bernie Sanders, presidential hopeful and Independent senator from Vermont, just won Time’s poll for “Person of the Year.” The poll is a separate feature from the magazine’s own choice, but does shed a light–although an imperfect one–on current American opinion and zeitgeist.

Sanders garnered just over 10 percent of the vote, the only choice to make double digits. Malala Yousefi came in second, at just over five percent. Pope Francis, President Obama, and Stephen Colbert received 3.7, 3.5, and 3.1 percent respectively–“refugees” were at three percent.

Sanders’ win is impressive, and it’s representative of the fact that he’s certainly had an amazingly influential year. His entrance into the 2016 Democratic primary shook up what many thought was going to be an open-and-shut victory for Hillary Clinton. Although Sanders still trails Clinton in the polls, his campaign is going strong, and he continues to attract fans.

In addition to Sanders’ win, there were some other noteworthy facets of the Time poll. One of the strangest options on the list was American Pharaoh, the first horse to win the Triple Crown since 1978, with 1.4 percent of the vote. But that’s actually a pretty strong showing compared to most of our presidential candidates. Carly Fiorina had .6 percent of the vote, and Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush each had .5 percent. Ben Carson fared a little better at 1.1 percent, as did Marco Rubio. Hillary Clinton was at 1.4 percent. That’s right, a horse either beat or tied six of our presidential candidates in Time’s poll for most influential person of the year.

But, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders won the poll, he’s not actually in contention to be Time’s person of the year. That short list has been disclosed by Time, and includes Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader; Black Lives Matter activists; Caitlyn Jenner; Travis Kalanick, Uber’s CEO; Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and Donald Trump. It should be noted that Donald Trump is particularly qualified, given that he beat American Pharaoh by an impressive .4 percent on the online poll.

Time defines its criteria for choosing the person of the year as “the person TIME believes most influenced the news this year, for better or worse.” Time won’t disclose its choice until Wednesday morning, and it will be from that short list. Meanwhile, I’ll be rooting for #AmericanPharaoh2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders Wins Time Person of the Year Poll, Doesn’t Lose to a Horse appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, while touring Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, Pope Francis gave a heartfelt speech to a crowded mosque where he spoke of unity saying, “Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters.” However, it wasn’t the speech that resonated most with people, but the photo of him speaking that went viral.

An image of the Pope gesturing while cupping a microphone quickly began to circulate social media, and it didn’t take long before users started saying the picture looked like the pope was prepping to spit a few rap bars.

Cue #PopeBars.

People quickly started using the picture and the trending hashtag to showcase some of their favorite papal-themed rap lyrics–and yes, they were hilarious. So without further ado, check out the slideshow below for ten of the top papal-themed rap lyrics from the hashtag.

#PopeBars I like it when you call me Big Papal (Throw your hands in the air, if youse a true pray-er) pic.twitter.com/tBiEUXCFMx

— BigHeadSports (@BigHeadSports) November 30, 2015

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #PopeBars: Pope Francis Sparks Viral Lyrical Hashtag appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, news of a horrific series of terror attacks in Paris, France, shook the world. The final death toll is unknown, but as of now, it is at 127, with over 300 injured. According to French authorities, there were eight attackers, all of whom are now dead. The attacks occurred at places of joy and celebration: like a soccer stadium, a concert hall, and restaurants. ISIL has taken responsibility for the acts of terror, although that claim has yet to be verified. However, the Islamic State claims that the attacks were in retribution for France’s involvement in Syria.

President Francois Hollande called the attacks by ISIL an “act of war.” He stated that they were:

Committed by a terrorist army, the Islamic State group, a jihadist army, against France, against the values that we defend everywhere in the world, against what we are: A free country that means something to the whole planet.

Shock, awe, compassion, and sadness still dominate the international conversation. Prominent world leaders have made statements in support of France, devoting aid and support in these horrible circumstances.

President Obama gave a brief statement in the White House briefing room on Friday night. He stated:

This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share. We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance that the government and the people of France need to respond.

British Prime Minister David Cameron echoed the same sentiments, pledging British support for France:

Shocked, but resolute. In sorrow, but unbowed. My message to the French people is simple: Nous sommes solidaires avec vous. Nous sommes tous ensemble. We stand with you. United.

Others who spoke against the attack included Pope Francis, who called the attacks a piece of the “piecemeal World War Three.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged solidarity, and Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote to Hollande that the acts of terror were “proof of the barbarian nature of terrorism, which challenges the human civilization.”

The world also took to social media to show its support for the people of France–Facebook users are adorning their photos with a blue, white, and red filter, the colors of the French flag. Others took the time to share their thoughts on Twitter:

“When Paris turned off its lights, the rest of the world turned them on.” pic.twitter.com/Ed7uHzQtHq

— chilly (@billyganbold_) November 14, 2015

Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) November 14, 2015

Powerful Image: The U.S. stands with France after the #ParisAttacks by cartoonist Steve Benson. pic.twitter.com/xngRW9XHTx

— Luis (@LuisANavia) November 14, 2015

Details are still coming out about the specifics of the attacks, as well as the ultimate response. For now, thoughts are with the people of Paris, as they struggle to get through this troubling time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Terror Attacks in France: The World Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

This week marks the one hundredth anniversary of the Armenian genocide, which took place in the Ottoman Empire beginning in April 1915. A lot has changed in 100 years–the Ottoman Empire obviously no longer exists, having been replaced by modern-day Turkey. The Armenians also now have a country of their own, bordering Turkey to the East. Yet the atrocities committed against the Armenians have remained a contentious point of debate, as Turkey refuses to recognize the genocide or even mention that it happened. Turkey has also pressured its allies to ignore the events, as well. Read on to learn about the Armenian genocide, Turkey’s position on the events, and the recognition, or lack thereof, by other countries.

History of the Armenian Genocide

Defining Genocide 

In the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Articles II and III, genocide is defined as “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” However, there’s been significant debate over whether or not what happened to the Armenians constitutes a genocide. On the global stage, opinions vary widely. For example, Pope Francis recently declared it the century’s first genocide, while Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations has stopped short of doing the same. For the purposes of this article, it will be referred to as the Armenian genocide, although with recognition that such a classification is disputed.

The Armenians

The Armenians lived in the region of modern-day Turkey for thousands of years. While they briefly had their own kingdom, they were usually a part of a larger empire, including the Ottoman Empire from the 1500s until its collapse following WWI. The Armenians were treated as second-class citizens in the empire due to their Christian religious beliefs, as the Ottomans were Muslim.

While the Armenian genocide was the worst and most well-publicized massacre of the Armenian people, it was not the only one. Over the course of the late 1800s, there had been another massacre at the hands of the Ottoman Turks as well. In that case, hundreds of thousands of people had been killed, a large number given the small overall population. There were also other intermittent acts of butchery levied against the Armenian population by the Turks throughout the years.

April 1915

The Armenian genocide began in April 1915, during WWI. It lasted into the 1920s and overall as many as 1.5 million Armenians were forcibly deported or killed. Along with the gruesome murders, children were also kidnapped from their families and sent to live with Ottoman parents and women were raped and forced to become part of harems for Ottoman rulers.

These attacks were prompted by a few different facets of the Ottoman-Armenian relationship. Since the late 1800s Armenians had protested Ottoman rule, demanding more rights and greater autonomy. During WWI it was widely believed that the Armenians would support the Russians in hopes of achieving independence. This concern was validated, as Armenians organized volunteer battalions to fight alongside the Russians against the Ottomans.

These atrocities against the Armenians were carried out by the ruling power of the Ottoman Empire at the time, the Young Turks. The Young Turks had come to power themselves through a coup of the old emperor of what was then the Ottoman Empire. The video below gives greater details of the massacre.

Reflecting on History

A mass killing of Armenians happened; there’s almost no disagreement about that. But even today, it is still illegal to say that in Turkey. In fact, if someone is caught talking about the event or writing about it, they risk being arrested. But why have so many other nations been so slow today to acknowledge the events that happened almost a century ago?

Turkey

The Turks have many ways to explain the mass deaths of the Armenian population during WWI, mostly attributing it to the grim realities of war. Why has Turkey persisted so long in presenting that description of events? The answer appears to be two-fold.

First, Turkey has denied the genocide so long now that it has almost become part of the national consciousness. In fact, the idea of an Armenian genocide almost seems bewildering to the Turkish people. In a recent statement with regard to an EU parliamentary vote on whether or not to recognize the actions of the Ottoman Empire as genocide, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan weighed in. Erdogan seemed perplexed at the EU even raising the issue. According to him,

I don’t know right now what sort of decision they will make … but I barely understand why we, as the nation, as well as print and visual media, stand in defense. I personally don’t bother about a defense because we don’t carry a stain or a shadow like genocide.

Turkey also faces potential costs in admitting guilt. Experts suggest that if Turkey were to admit to committing genocide, it may have to compensate victims or their families. This was the case in the aftermath of the Holocaust, which was recognized. With these factors in place it becomes clearer why Turkey would be hesitant to admit guilt, especially when the admission would gain the Turks nothing, except perhaps some good will in the international community. The accompanying video reiterates why Turkey is refusing to acknowledge the genocide.

Denying the genocide has also been a political strategy for some in Turkey. President Erdogan is a huge road block for acknowledging the genocide. He has made comments denying the genocide that have helped him to gain popularity. Given that he has faced increased criticism for his governing style and changes he has attempted to make to Turkey’s government to keep himself in power, any political points he can score probably look pretty appealing.

Within Turkey, some groups have recognized the genocide. Kurds, who make up about 20 percent of the country’s population, have recognized the events to a large extent. While Kurds commemorated the anniversary and use the word genocide in describing the events, they have been accused of falling somewhat short. Namely, despite Kurdish units carrying out some of the Armenian murders, Kurdish citizens, like the Turks, are hesitant to accept any responsibility. In this case, they feel justified in their denial because it was not their nation conducting the massacres, but rather the Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless many Kurds feel a responsibility to reconcile with the Armenians because they are also an oppressed people.

The U.S. and Other Allies

While Turkey’s motives seem relatively clear in denying the Armenian genocide, the motives of its allies are less so. Already many countries recognize the genocide including Canada, France, Germany, and Russia.  Other countries such as the U.K. and Israel do not.

The United States also hasn’t, as a whole, recognized the genocide. While 40 states, the House of Representatives, and several presidents have confirmed Turkish actions against the Armenians to be genocide, the nation has not. The reason for American refusal, like that of Turkey itself, mostly lies in self-interest.

When other countries, such as France and Austria, have recognized the genocide, Turkey has withdrawn its ambassador or ended military alliances with them. While France and Austria can get by fine without Turkish military assistance, it is a little more difficult for the U.S., which uses Turkey as a critical strategic point for interactions with nations in the Middle East.

Additionally, there has been a significant lobby on Turkey’s behalf within the U.S. government to not recognize the genocide. By preventing the U.S. from recognizing Turkey’s culpability it reduces the pressure the country is under internationally. The video below shows then-Senator Barack Obama addressing the Armenian genocide seven years ago, an issue he promised to address but still has not.

Conclusion

The man who came up with the word genocide, Raphael Lampkin, penned the term to describe the Nazis’ atrocities against the Jews.However, he had also been influenced by the Turkish actions against the Armenians during WWI and the Armenians’ subsequent efforts to track down and murder the leaders responsible. To him there was no difference between the two scenarios–in each case an entire people and way of life were targeted for extermination; however, Turkey and its allies, including the United States, have consistently failed to see the similarities. As long as the current barriers to recognition remain in place, that will probably continue to be the norm.

Resources

The New York Times: Armenian Genocide of 1915

Prevent Genocide International: The Crime of Genocide Defined in International Law

Times of Israel: UN Chief Won’t Call 1915 Slaughter of Armenians “Genocide“

Guardian: Turkey Cannot Accept Armenian Genocide Label, says Erdogan

CNN: ISIS-Kurdish Fight Stirs Trouble in Turkey

Ynet News: Erdogan Turkey’s King of Controversy

Al Monitor: Kurds Pay Respect to Armenians

History: Armenian Genocide

Los Angeles Times: Why Armenia Genocide Recognition Remains a Tough Sell

Blaze: The 1915 Armenian Genocide-Why it is Still Being Denied by Turkey (and the US?)

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Armenian Genocide: A Battle For Recognition appeared first on Law Street.

The University of Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic institution, may now resume its battle against birth control after the Supreme Court revived its religious objections to the government contraceptive coverage requirements. The whole debate boils down to an Obamacare provision that has religious opponents in this case advocating for some separation between church and state.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, has been a topic of contention for some religious organizations unwilling to adhere to its contraception provision. The act mandates employers supply health insurance policies to their female employees that cover contraception and sterilization, but detractors say that violates their religious beliefs.

Christian business Hobby Lobby battled boycotts while defending their moral opposition to the act last summer in the Supreme Court and won. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.‘s landmark decision in favor of Hobby Lobby set a precedent for other religious organizations to seek exemptions from the law due to their religious preferences, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision for the Catholic university in light of that ruling.

According to Reuters, the lower court threw out a February 2014 appeals court ruling denying Notre Dame an injunction against the requirement. The appeals court ruling pre-dated the Supreme Court’s June 2014 Hobby Lobby exemption decision. Despite the landmark decision, courts have continued to hear cases on the issue, but have all decided in favor of the government, finding “the compromise does not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, discussed Notre Dame’s objections with the Wall Street Journal. She advocated for women’s rights, saying:

It’s absurd to assert that simply filling out a form stating an objection violates religious freedom. What Notre Dame and others really object to is women getting the contraceptive coverage they need. That’s discrimination, plain and simple.

The Catholic church and some Christian opponents don’t see the issue as discrimination, but rather a violation of their rights to represent their beliefs while operating private businesses. Catholicism has historically been opposed to all forms of birth control except abstinence and natural family planning. So, insurance plans that cover birth control, especially in the form of emergency contraception like the Plan B pill and intrauterine devices, stand contradictory to their beliefs.

However, the church may be loosening its stance some when it comes to sex. Pope Francis, who has been recently hailed as a revolutionary force in the Catholic Church, was just quoted saying “Catholics needn’t feel compelled to breed like rabbits.” Even so, following the church’s voice on sexual matters has become less and less important for modern Catholics.  The New York Times broke down Gallup’s “Values and Beliefs” survey from last May finding:

Catholics were only slightly less open to birth control, with 86 percent of them saying that it was “morally acceptable” in comparison with 90 percent of all respondents. But Catholics were more permissive than all respondents when it came to sex outside marriage (acceptable to 72 percent of Catholics versus 66 percent of Americans overall) and gay and lesbian relationships (70 percent versus 58).

Regardless of the feelings of average Americans, however, Notre Dame has stuck to the lawsuit.

Overall this battle between church and state is a fight over health vs. morals. Providing adequate health care coverage for employees is an employer’s responsibility, and maintaining sexual and reproductive health is essential to all women’s wellbeing. The Supreme Court’s decision and reexamination of Notre Dame’s objections may mean some women will have to decide whether or not they’re willing to forfeit that right to adhere with company culture when choosing to work for a religious organization.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Revives Notre Dame’s Contraception Mandate Objections appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s be real, Pope Francis is the best thing to happen to the Catholic church in a long time. He is slowly but surely moving the antiquated system into the twenty-first century, denouncing those clergymen who live in excess, and generally showing goodwill toward everybody regardless of race, sexual orientation, political views, or economic standing. You know, the things Catholicism was originally based on.

And yes, some Catholics are not at all happy with Pope Francis’ modernization of church doctrine, especially when it comes to his views on sexuality.

One such naysayer is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke who has made headlines before with his insults and reprimands of Pope Francis, as well as his extremely conservative political views. Pope Benedict had placed Burke in a high-level position within his administration, but once Pope Francis came along Burke ran into a lot of trouble.

In a Buzzfeed interview in October 2014, Burke discussed Pope Francis’ contemporary leadership with little-concealed hostility: “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other truth of the faith.”

That is true, the pope cannot just say whatever he wants based on his personal opinions, but the truth is that he hasn’t. He has opened his arms to certain groups that the Church has previously shunned, based on the fact that the Church, historically, is supposed to do just that.

But just when you think things are getting better for the Church, someone like Cardinal Burke comes along and says something like this:

The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

This statement comes from an interview Cardinal Burke gave on January 5 to a website called “The New EMANgelization,” so you can see it just gets better. The subject of the interview was the “man-crisis” in the Catholic Church and the “feminization” of the men within it.

Cardinal Burke went on to say how the feminization of the Church is to blame for men who do not develop true “manliness,” and that men who are “confused” should be taught to “overcome these grievous temptations.”

According to Burke, though, luckily there is a whole new group of  “strong young men who desire to serve God as priests.” He goes on, “This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.”

Hear that women? Feminized men become sexually confused. Feminization is, according to Burke, to blame for homosexuality AND pedophilia.

Yeah…no.

Historically, women’s place in Catholicism is as the mother and the homemaker. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a mother and a homemaker, as long as it is actually your decision. The Church has a long-standing reputation for discouraging gender equality based on the idea that women are primarily sexual creatures, bent on seducing men away from faith (they blame Eve for a helluva lot). That is why we end up with several old-fashioned religious fanatics who are, in reality, just misogynists.

I could go on for a long time about the Church’s horrible treatment of women, but for now I will just say this: people like Cardinal Burke spew opinions not truly based anywhere within the Bible or Church teachings, but rather from a place of misogyny and hate. Catholicism, at its roots, is based in love and acceptance, and luckily Pope Francis seems to grasp that.

Oh, and things like “The New EMANgelization” should definitely not exist.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cardinal Blames Feminization for Homosexuality and Pedophilia appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, but still some vestiges remain. One of the most apparent is the relationship between the United States and Cuba. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Cuba, located not even 100 miles off the coast of Florida, since 1961. That’s a long time–in the name of interesting context, for the entire duration of President Barack Obama’s life, we have not had normalized relations with Cuba. But that began to change yesterday. Those frozen relations are beginning to thaw. Diplomatic relations are being opened back up, prisoners are being released, and both travel and trade will be expanded, among other steps.

The conversation between Washington and Havana took 18 months, and eventually included both President Barack Obama, and President Raul Castro. Castro has officially been President of Cuba since 2008, although his brother, former President Fidel Castro basically handed over power in 2006. There was also a third major player–Pope Francis.

The Pope’s role does make sense. After all, he’s the first pope to hail from Latin America, and Cuba is heavily Catholic. Although exact statistics are difficult to obtain, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that a little over 50 percent of Cubans are Catholic. Since President Raul Castro took power, he’s been more flexible about allowing the Catholic Church to operate in Cuba than his brother. Pope Francis’s motives seem clear–he believed that improving relations between the United States and Cuba would help both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the two nations.

There’s a fourth player to consider though, although maybe calling him a non-player would be more accurate. This whole conversation sends an interesting message to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who most definitely wasn’t invited to the party. During the Cold War, Cuba was one of Russia’s bargaining chips. That’s pretty much what the entire Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Since the Cold War ended, Russia and Cuba have remained pretty close.

However, Russia isn’t nearly as good of a benefactor or friend as they used to be. They’ve had a rough time of it lately. Russia received quite a bit of international ire for its meddling in Ukraine; the U.S. Congress just passed new sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine situation. In addition, the Russian economy is very much struggling. The Russian unit of currency–the ruble–has fallen to a historic low. Putin has attempted to comfort his people, basically claiming that the Russian economy will bounce back within two years, which seems more like a bandaid than a promise. Putin also partly blamed the rough economic conditions in Russia on Western interference. Put simply, Putin is both in trouble, and pretty annoyed with the U.S. right now.

So, it becomes clear that the move to improve relations with Cuba can be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S.. Our relationship with Cuba will probably undermine Russia’s, and will be a symbol of Russia’s seemingly wavering international influence. Given that Russia and the U.S. haven’t been particularly friendly lately–the whole Ukraine debacle is a major reason why–it makes sense why the U.S. might want to take away some of Russia’s friends. It’s not going to majorly affect the Russian economy, or anything of the sort, but it looks really bad. It may take a lot of straws to break a camel’s back, but there’s no reason not to add straws when you can.

There were many reasons that the U.S. and Cuba took such a historic step this week–moral, diplomatic, and economic, just to name a few. Whatever reasons ended up being the most convincing, one thing is certain. It’s definitely a new era in American and Cuban relations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Left Out: United States and Cuba Thaw Relations appeared first on Law Street.

A group of Catholic nuns is denouncing the influence of big money in U.S. politics by conducting a 36-city tour across the country. The group, NETWORK, led by Sister Simone Campbell, kicked off its Nuns on a Bus campaign called “We the People, We the Voters” campaign. The group is advocating social justice through voter registration and expansion. The group has been the subject of criticism from other parts of the Catholic church, though, as part of an expanding internal conflict between Vatican authority and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

The Nuns on the Bus began their campaigning in 2012 when they condemned income inequality in battle ground states. In 2013 they addressed immigration reform. It isn’t hard to see why some more conservative church authorities would reprimand Sister Campbell and her group. A report from the Religion News Service (RNS) describes an attack by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, on the LCWR: “(Müller) said the sisters were focusing too much on social justice issues, such as caring for the poor and advocating for immigrants, and were too active in promoting healthcare reform.” In 2012, the LCWR was censured in a “doctrinal assessment” for exactly these actions. The Vatican isn’t alone in its criticism, though. The website CatholicCulture.org came out with a scathing article by its founder, Dr. Jeff Mirus, in August. “For decades, the LCWR has been vitiated by feminism, the New Age, Wicca, Modernism and just plain secularism,” Mirus writes.

By staying largely silent, Pope Francis has yet to be fully mired in the controversy. But a column in The Guardian expresses great disappointment in the Pope: “The really disheartening thing about the pope’s unwillingness to end the nuns’ censure – indeed, about his unwillingness to openly support them – is that his stated values are no different than the ones the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is being punished for carrying out,” writer Sadhbh Walshe noted. Cardinal Müller’s reproach of the LCWR is seemingly unregulated by Francis, who has long championed a greater church focus on social justice issues.

How is social justice work compatible with Catholic teachings, and what exactly is meant by “social justice”? For Sister Campbell, NETWORK, and the LCWR, social justice includes advocating for accessible health care, immigration reform and reduced corporate influence in elections. For Cardinal Müller and the Vatican, social justice advocacy is restricted to redressing abortion access.

If nothing else, this case illustrates the complex dynamics of religious authority and the dangers of generalizing when talking about religion. Two opposing interpretations of Catholic teachings on social justice are currently at war, and we wait on Pope Francis to make a statement. While it would be immature to demand that he take one side or another, it would be equally disappointing if he did not use his clout to make a meaningful statement on the matter. This case does more than just illustrate some different Catholic interpretations; it begs the question, why shouldn’t Pope Francis come out in support of the LCWR and activist nuns like Sister Campbell?

Francis also has the opportunity reject the exclusion of feminism from sanctioned church activity. Moreover, he has the opportunity to illustrate how feminism can support sanctioned church activity. Compatibility is the question here. How is feminism compatible with current Vatican doctrine and authority? The extent to which they are compatible can be suggested and advocated for, if not expressly dictated by, Pope Francis. If feminism has truly “vitiated” organizations like NETWORK and the LCWR, then it is also responsible for anti-torture campaigns, environmental activism, and advocacy of nuclear weapons restructuring.

From such an outsider’s perspective, it will never be my place to insist on this or that church doctrine. But Pope Francis, should he make a statement, as he has the opportunity to shape the relationship between feminism and the church.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured image courtesy of [TexasImpact via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Pope Francis Can Shape Relationship Between Feminism and the Church appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we are very interested in the changing world of law. So as the wild ride that was 2013 comes to an end, I thought it would be fun to count down the biggest changes, innovations, and crazy moments in the world of law and politics this year.

8. George Zimmerman Trial 

What happened: On July 14, 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin. This verdict was understandably met with widespread shock. Some people were angry, some were vindicated, but everyone had an opinion.

Protests like this happened all over the country. Courtesy of Werth Media via Flickr.

Why it matters: Anyone who regularly reads my pieces knows that I’m a big fan of talking. I think, maybe misguidedly, that open dialogue is a great thing and solves 80 percent of problems. And if you’re looking for strong dialogue in 2013, look no further than the debate that occurred immediately after the Zimmerman acquittal. We saw conversations about the implications of stand your ground laws, gun control, and institutionalized racism. Now my hopeless naiveté won’t go so far as to say that these conversations were productive. But they happened, they’ve been introduced, and my dearest hope is that next year I’ll be able to say that we’ve made progress out of the tragedy that was Trayvon Martin’s death.

7. Jeff Bezos Buys the Washington Post 

What happened: Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, bought The Washington Post this summer in a $250 million deal. Now this might seem a little off topic — what does the purchase of a newspaper have to do with law and politics?

Why it matters: The world is changing. Media is changing, and we know this because a multi-billionaire who made his fortune from an internet sales company just bought one of the most influential papers in the country. That’s big because it means our media is getting smarter, it’s gaining control, and the internet is increasingly becoming a one-stop-shop for all we need. Plus, if Amazon follows through on its promises, we might get our newspaper delivered by drones, which would be pretty cool.

I’m mostly really excited about this drone delivery idea, guys.

6. Pope Francis Begins His Papacy

What happened: On March 13, 2013, Pope Francis became the head of the Catholic Church.

Why it matters: He immediately enacted some pretty serious changes. He downgraded the extravagant Vatican facilities. He has been advocating for more inclusive Church policies. He stated, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?” He has said that the the Catholic Church needs to stop being so obsessed with social issues. The Pope changing his views on this could push some big changes for American politics. Don’t get me wrong, he is still a Catholic Pope and he is still a conservative man. But he works with the poor and he seems to be a man of the 21st century, and I have to give him props for that.

High Five, Pope Francis.

5. The Manti Te’o Girlfriend Hoax

What happened: This is probably an odd one to put so high on my list, but it was a very, very weird story. A Notre Dame linebacker, who now plays for the San Diego Chargers, told a story about his girlfriend, a Stanford University student named Lennay Kekua who had died of Leukemia. In January 2013, it was discovered that Lennay Kekua never existed. Her relationship with Te’o was purely online. The culprit behind the hoax turned out to be a man named Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, who may have fallen in love with Te’o while pretending to be his fictional girlfriend.

This refers to the online part, not the falling in love part. That part’s slightly less weird.

Why it matters: We’re at the point where a convincing and moving relationship can be forged 100 percent online. I know I’m a millennial who does everything online, but maybe I’m a bad one, because I simply can’t fathom that. I think this marks a big change in our world. Five years ago, if a professional athlete revealed that he had an online relationship with a woman he had never met, it would be completely ridiculous. Now, it was ridiculed, and commentators were surprised, but people understood how it could happen. Online presences can supersede our real lives now, and that’s scary.

4. Dems Detonate “Nuclear Option”

What happened: After a series of failed judicial nominees, Senate Democrats took drastic action. They changed the rules so that federal judicial nominees can move to the confirmation process with a simple majority of Senators, rather than a super majority of 60.

Why it matters: This will fundamentally change the way in which federal judicial nominees are confirmed. It may also permanently change the courts. If Presidents no longer need to pick moderates who can garner a 60-vote confirmation, the courts will get more liberal during a Democratic presidency, or more conservative during a Republican presidency.

3. NSA Spying Scandal

What happened: Although this event started in 2012, it got really big in 2013. Edward Snowden’s release of the extent of NSA monitoring shocked the American public. Snowden has since fled the United States.

The American reaction.

Why it matters: The intersection of politics, law, and technology continues to weave a tangled web, and the NSA scandal was the greatest proof of that phenomenon. We are being watched, and there’s nothing that we can do about it. Comparisons to Big Brother and 1984 were made, but that’s the truth, and people realized that this year. There’s a different level of trust in the government now.

2. The Affordable Care Act Mess

What happened: The rollout of the Affordable Care Act was the biggest mess I’ve seen in a long time. From the government shutdown that preceded it, to the internet issues, to the logistical problems, it was kind of a hot mess.

See another hot mess for context.

Why it matters: The ACA is still in place. It’s not perfect. It has problems. But it’s still a law and despite the Republicans’ best efforts, it will continue. That was an important lesson for everyone to learn this year. We will have hot mess laws and these laws will create problems;  however, they will remain the law. We can fix or repeal them, but we can’t pretend they don’t exist, and we can’t pretend that we can will them away.

1. Gay Rights

What happened: 2013 was a huge year for gay rights. In June, the Supreme Court handed down big successes for federal and state gay marriage rights. Gay marriage became legal in Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Hawaii and Illinois.

Why it matters: Obviously there’s still a long way to go, but any slow, small steps down the right path are good. Notably conservative states — Utah and New Mexico — even got in on the action, albeit through court-mandated measures.

So here’s to 2013. It was wild, it was weird, and it was revolutionary. I don’t know about you all, but I’m excited to see what 2014 brings.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sally Mahoney via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Most Influential News Events of 2013 appeared first on Law Street.