NEW YORK (AP) — Dean Koontz admits it was “kind of frustrating” a few months back when an idea that he predicted the coronavirus in his 1981 novel, “The Eyes of Darkness” took on a life of its own online.
“It was one of those internet things that’s mostly bogus,” said Koontz. “I had a book 40 years ago mention the Wuhan virus and it came from a lab in China. I didn’t make a prediction of a pandemic, it was a totally different story. My first strategy was just, ‘don’t engage in this and it will go away.’ And it just didn’t go away. Social media has got a light side and its dark side.”
The author, 75, has a new book out called “Elsewhere” about Jeffy and Amity — a single father and his 11-year-old daughter — moving through life as best they can after their wife and mother, Michelle, disappeared seven years prior. Dad meets an eccentric scientist who presents Jeffy with what’s described as a “key to everything,” holding the ability to time jump among among parallel universes. The discovery opens up a bevy of possibilities for Jeffy and Amity (including meeting up with Michelle) but also danger — because there are people who really want that key, and would kill to get it.
In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Koontz talks about his well of untouched ideas, adapting his writing for Hollywood and publishing with Amazon. Answers have been edited for clarity and brevity.
AP: You’ve written more than 100 books. Do you ever have trouble coming up with new ideas?
Koontz: I have a drawer in my office that when I get an idea that’s not too horrendous, I scribble it on a piece of paper. I put it in that drawer. And I’ve always said, “When I run out of ideas for my next book, I’ll pull one out.” I’ve never had to. There’s always new ideas. I think imagination is like a muscle and the more you use it, the more ideas come to you.
AP: “Elsewhere” paints such a vivid story. You haven’t had your writing adapted in awhile. Would you be open to that again?
Koontz: I am open to it but I never have any high expectations. My film agent has “Elsewhere” out to market. I just haven’t had a lot of luck with that. After the 1995 film “Hideaway” (starring Jeff Goldblum), I considered tying an anvil around myself and leaping off a bridge… Stephen Sommers made a very nice version of “Odd Thomas” (starring Anton Yelchin in 2013) but it was crimped by the fact that about halfway through the money ran out and he had to cut the budget, but it was still good.
AP: You now have a publishing deal with Amazon. What’s that like? A lot of authors have a love-hate relationship with Amazon.
Koontz: It always comes down to the people you deal with. It’s astonishing that everyone that I’ve been working with at Amazon have been very creative, very efficient, just fun to work with. A lot of it is it’s a younger group and that sort of astounded me, too.
AP: Do you see a point where you would want to stop writing? (Koontz has already delivered book No. 79 to his publisher.)
Koontz: I’ll probably stop when I fall dead and hit the keyboard. Time will stop everybody but I’ve had some reviews saying that the books are almost better than ever and that’s gratifying. As long as it’s still play and it’s still fun and I get positive letters from people, that’s better than sitting by the pool with an umbrella.
… model and activist has a book deal. She is working on …
Emily Ratajkowski is working on book of essays, ‘My … activist Emily Ratajkowski has a book deal. “EmRata,” as her millions … collection called “My Body.” Metropolitan Books will published it in 2022 …
Merrill Markoe, the writer and comedian, tries to never throw out anything that could make for good material. That could be the goofy ad for “who’s who in the lunch meat industry” or a robe from an appearance on “The Arsenio Hall Show.”
And three years ago, Markoe was rummaging through a box when she stumbled upon something budding with possibilities. It was her first diary, a puffy-covered book from 1958. The tiny lock couldn’t keep her out. It turned out to be one of a stack of diaries documenting her life from fourth grade through college. (After that, they became journals.) Reading her own words from another era, Markoe couldn’t believe how much she had forgotten. “I used to just record everything I did,” she says. “I thought that’s what they were for. So I wrote down everything . . . every movie, every TV show, every assignment that was due at school.”
She was struck by how much was said – about family, teachers, boys – and how much was left unsaid. After examining the diaries, Markoe realized she wanted to understand this “stranger” and memory itself. That’s when she picked up her drawing pencils.
Markoe is best known for her work in comedy (co-creator of “Late Night with David Letterman”) and writing (10 books and counting). But before she did standup, Markoe studied painting and earned a master’s in art from the University of California at Berkeley. “We Saw Scenery,” a graphic memoir of those childhood diaries, covers roughly a decade, from the days of spelling bees to the time she went to one of Ken Kesey’s acid test parties. Markoe observes her childhood self from the present, even planting adult Merrill into several conversations. (“WHO ARE YOU? WHY do you care? Leave me alone,” the younger girl complains.) The result taps into not only the challenges of a girl growing up in the 1960s, but also Markoe’s special ability to use traditions and American consumerist culture as fuel for her absurdist humor. Markoe, who lives in Los Angeles, spoke recently about some of the subjects that inspired “We Saw Scenery.”
– – –
– Hippo
(Page 15)
I started just thinking, “Oh, I want to read about memory. Why do I remember only half of what’s written in this diary? Where do you store memories, and how do you store memories?” That’s how I got to the hippocampus. Which led me to draw a hippo. It was just a dumb joke, but I was wanting to ask somebody . . . why we decided to black this one out. It said it was “the worst day of my life.”
– Adult Merrill vs. Child Merrill
(Page 50)
The younger me wouldn’t have wanted anything to do with me. The younger me was way crazier. Later in life, not in these diaries, I did stuff like jump in the San Francisco Bay. . . . But I was inexorably headed for some career. I never wanted to have a family, and I went ahead and didn’t. I sort of wrote my own destiny that way. I really wanted to fall in love. Those were things I was interested in, the creative life and a love life. I went ahead and did it.
One thing I’ve learned is that everybody, before they are 27, does all that crazy stuff because your frontal lobe isn’t attached. That’s really big. The part of our brain that contemplates the idea of consequences isn’t really connected.
– Roadside Psychiatry
(Page 136)
I thought that would be a good way to meet cute guys. They would sit down. I would tell them they have mental problems. Why else would you do it? It was mostly Rorschach tests, which I was aware of because of Mad magazine. It was modeled completely after Lucy and Peanuts, and it was there for months. We were very proud of it. It was obviously the one place I was functioning. I wanted to be funny, and there weren’t a lot of venues for being funny for a girl that I was aware of. Girls were squelched at that point in pop culture. And school was all about home ec and learning recipes.
– Angry Mother
(Page 235)
My mother is to this day a real enigma. She was a really, really angry person. Like a lot of women in that era. During World War II, she was working at Time magazine and was working at some risque magazine . . . but then World War II ended, and all the guys came home, and she was angry for the rest of her life. And she would never tell you why.
She used to tell me that she had created her own Frankenstein. Looking back on that, I thought, “That’s pretty flattering.” She started finding me a nightmare when I started differentiating myself from my parents, which was about 15, and it lasted for the rest of her life.
It doesn’t take long for Bianca Vogelsang’s new boyfriend, Joshua, to discover some red flags after they meet at Cal State Fullerton. Bianca carries around a plastic doll she calls “Jubilee” as if it’s a real baby, pretending to feed it with a toy bottle. Bianca, the protagonist of Jennifer Givhan’s new novel “Jubilee,” has traumatic reasons for calling a doll her daughter, but even as Josh’s skin gets “prickly like he was watching a horror movie” while Bianca soothes Jubilee, he continues their relationship.
Yes, curiosity is a powerful force, but Joshua has his own burdens – he’s the legal guardian of his young nephew – and seems to understand that Bianca is more than just wounded or different. She’s also funny and smart and beautiful and alive. Bianca’s half brother Matty and his partner, Handro, also recognize that Bianca’s behavior stems from trauma – perhaps because she’s shown up at their Santa Ana house exhausted and bloody, requiring a hospital stay.
Once Bianca is healed and established in their home, the men accept Jubilee as part of their family. “Matty watched Jubilee while Bianca went to school and during her therapy sessions.” Bianca isn’t completely oblivious; she sees the way the men glance at each other. Still, she “needed this to be normal. And soon it was. They were family. And family protected each other.”
The book continues, alternating between two narratives – “With Jubilee” and “Before Jubilee” – that shed more light on Bianca’s situation. Her high school boyfriend, Gabe, gets her pregnant and insists she have an abortion, then sexually assaults her. Her family, mother and Matty included, then begin to act as if Bianca “was made of china and would break apart at any moment.”
Bianca will have to rescue herself, and what saves the book from melodrama (it’s well written, but heavy on emotion) is its through line: Bianca’s devotion to poetry. Like her idol, Sandra Cisneros, Bianca wants to be a voice for her people, the Mexican American working-class residents of Southern California, whose lives contain, like everyone’s, sadness and miscommunication, but also community and celebration.
Which, Bianca tells Josh, is what Jubilee’s name means: “celebration. I grew up Catholic, and we memorized all the verses. In the Bible, Jubilee is the time of release and universal pardon. Slaves set free. Land returned. Debts forgotten. All kicked off with a trumpet blast.” Bianca’s passion for the trumpet-blast verses of Emily Dickinson and Spoken Word, Shakespeare and Ana Castillo gives her a life of the mind that lifts her away – sometimes temporarily, sometimes for much longer – from the circumstances and memories that haunt her, helping her find her own release and pardon.
However, before Bianca can move on, she has to move through, and that means facing good truths, like her healthy love for Joshua, and hard truths, like a secret no one in the family wants to acknowledge. Givhan manages to tell a story about Mexicali culture that, by focusing on one young woman’s hope, avoids cultural generalizations and tells, instead, a story of family growth and personal triumph.
– – –
Patrick is the editor, most recently, of “The Books That Changed My Life: Reflections by 100 Authors, Actors, Musicians and Other Remarkable People.”
The Malian presidency on Thursday confirmed the release of Italian Priest, Fr. Pier Luigi Maccalli kidnapped two years ago by jihadist insurgents, alongside three other hostages.
Media reports say the release was part of a hundred-prisoner swap mediated by the recently-constituted government in Mali.
The other three people released alongside Fr. Maccalli are Nicola Chiacchio, an Italian, Frenchwoman Sophie Petronin and Malian politician Soumaïla Cissé.
Reacting to the news, the Conference of Italian Bishops (CEI), in a Twitter post, said it welcomes with joy the news of the liberation of Fr. Pier Luigi and Nicola Chiacchio. The Bishops also express their gratitude to God and to all those who worked for their liberation, and continue to pray for others who are still missing.
Fr. Pierluigi Maccalli, a missionary of the Society of African Missions (SMA) was kidnapped in Niger, at the border with Burkina Faso on the night of 17 to 18 September 2018 by jihadist militants. He was working in the parish of Bomoanga in the diocese of Niamey.
59-year-old Fr. Maccalli’s kidnap took place a week after his return from a period of vacation in Italy.
Before his release, he was last seen in a video earlier this year in which he appeared with Nicola Chacchio, an engineer who was captured while visiting Mali as a tourist in 2019. They were both seated next to each other in the video, beards unkempt and visibly emaciated.
Other hostages freed
Soumaïla Cissé, one of the other three hostages freed, is a former opposition leader, finance minister and three-time presidential candidate in Mali. He was seized on 25 March 2020 in his home region of Niafounké.
Sophie Petronin was kidnapped on 24 December 2014 in Gao, northern Mali where she ran a children’s aid organization.
The global virus has turned many things inside-out in the world. This change has also played itself out along the lines of production and solidarity. Monsignor Robert Vitillo, Secretary General of the International Catholic Migration Commission, picks up on a theme that, even if often silent and invisible, is now history. “While big busines and big government” he observes, “shut down during the peak situations of the pandemic, many effective responses were initiated at the local community level” – from the volunteers who distributed food to the sick and elderly, to the “university engineering students fashioning ventilators from machines we would never even have considered in pre-COVID days”. Msgr. Vitillo is now hopeful that, as Pope Francis has often expressed, that every institution at any level might “awaken to the need for greater social and spiritual cooperation as well”.
You are part of the Vatican COVID 19 Commission, Pope Francis’ response mechanism to an unprecedented virus. What do you personally hope to learn from this experience? In what way do you think society as a whole can be inspired by the work of the Commission?
R. – My participation in the Vatican’s COVID 19 Commission calls me to respond more fully and more respectfully to the suffering of those directly affected by the pandemic and to those who are more vulnerable to being infected with this disease and are subjected to more harmful social and economic impacts of this public health emergency. The whole world has faced many challenges from this pandemic but those who are poor, marginalized, already suffering from serious health conditions, struggle much more than most of us. We must reach out in Christian solidarity to all our sisters and brothers in the human family. And, as Pope Francis tells us, since we all are in the same boat, we must learn to row together.
Pope Francis asked the COVID 19 Commission to prepare the future instead of prepare for it. What should be the role of the Catholic Church as an institution in this endeavor?
R. – In asking us to prepare the future, I believe that Pope Francis is urging us never to return to the “old normal” which gave way to deep gaps between the rich and the poor, serious ecological damage and violence within our own families and in all of society. God now invites us to co-create with Him a new world built on love, justice, equality, and access to decent and dignified work, education for all, and health care for everyone in need regardless of their ability to pay for such care. Through its moral leadership and universal outreach, the Catholic Church should inspire change of policies, practices, and behavior at all levels, from heads of government to key decision-makers, to religious leaders and people of faith, to grassroots communities.
What personal lessons (if any) have you derived from the experience of the pandemic? What concrete changes do you hope to see after this crisis both personally and globally?
R. – I have learned to listen more carefully to the needs of my work colleagues at the International Catholic Migration Commission and to be more sensitive to the plight of the migrants, refugees and internally displaced persons whom we serve in all parts of the world. As a priest, I suffered with my fellow parishioners at St. John XXIII parish in Geneva when they were not allowed to come to church and to receive Christ in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. I hope that this crisis has helped me to grow spiritually and to never forget my total dependence on God and to feel His love and mercy each day. Finally, I hope that I have learned to thank God more sincerely for all His gifts and to comfort those who have suffered as a result of COVID 19.
What is the coronavirus crisis revealing about current political systems? Are we seeing that there are serious difficulties in managing the pandemic in every countries, in every system?
R. – While big busines and big government shut down during the peak situations of the pandemic, many effective responses were initiated at the local community level. Volunteers delivering food to the sick and elderly; religious Sisters producing home-made masks; university engineering students fashioning ventilators from machines we would never even have considered in pre-COVID days. Front-line workers, many of whom were migrants and refugees and who previously had faced much stigma and discrimination, risked their own lives to save the lives of people whom they had never met. This tells us that big business and big government must change their values and focus more on persons than money or power.
“No one will be saved alone,” the Holy Father has said several times. It seems glaringly obvious, but many countries are falling back on hypothetical, individual, almost selfish, solutions. Are current models of governance still adequate? On what values could a new model be based?
R. – I think the fractured and unequal responses to COVID 19 reveal the great danger of increasing nationalistic tendencies and the false notion that we can avoid global problems if we simply close or borders and our communities to so-called “foreigners”. Globalization has made us interdependent at every level of life and economic activity; clear evidence of this was shown when many countries could not even produce the medical products to keep people alive during this pandemic. The basic values and principles at the foundation of almost every major religious tradition are more needed now than ever: solidarity and subsidiarity, justice and charity, love for all, and global cooperation at every level of society.
The European Union itself runs the risk of a deep fracture in post-Covid management. The divisions that have emerged among the 27 member states seem to highlight the lack of creativity and foresight. Can a union built on the ruins of the Second World War forget the lessons of its own history?
R. – Hopefully, the experience of COVID 19 will help people remember the reasons why they established the European Union and the fact that much of this Union was built on the values handed down by Christianity for many centuries. I pray that the European Union will not only respond with economic aid, although that, too, is sorely needed by some countries in Europe and in many other places in the world. I hope that Europeans also will awaken to the need for greater social and spiritual cooperation as well.
What role is the United Nations playing in the worldwide economic and political reconstruction? Since this is a crisis that truly spares no country, shouldn’t it occupy a privileged place, that of the world’s laboratory which will be handed over to future generations?
R. – As a member of two World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Working Groups in Response to COVID 19, I have been struck by the acknowledgement of many scientists and public health experts that people place much more credibility in religious leaders and faith-inspired organizations that in the UN and in governments. For that reason, these UN officials invited my participation in these Expert Working Groups and requested religious leaders to disseminate information and guidance on how to prevent further spread of COVID 19. A joint response at every level of society, of government, and of multi-lateral organizations is needed to end the threat of COVID 19 and to prepare for future pandemics that might be on the horizon. And, as Pope Francis has taught any medicines and vaccines must be made available to all members of the human family.
The history of the world is marked by epochal crises, moments in which humanity finds itself at a crossroads and has had to make truly historical choices. Are we at before such an epochal crossroads today?
R. – We certainly have been staring an epochal crossroads in the face with the coming of COVID 19 – who ever thought that an invisible virus would be able to bring the entire world to a halt within a matter of weeks? Who could ever have predicted that the mega-cities of New York, Sao Paulo, Paris, and even our beloved Roma, would seem lifeless and empty for several months? But now, even while we still struggle with beginning and/or second waves of COVID 19, we already face another crossroads. Will we try to restore the “old normal” that put us in such a precarious situation in the first place or will we be more serious about cooperating with God to build His Kingdom also during this life, in order to be better prepared for the next life in heaven?
What is at stake? What could we be losing out on due to selfishness and individualism?
R. – Not only our lives are at stake but even more so are the lives and dignity and happiness of future generations. Selfishness and individualism did not work for our first parents Adam and Eve or their son, Cain who murdered his brother, Abel. They never have worked for those who wage war and violence on each other. The most successful man who ever walked this earth was our Emmanuel, God-with-us, Jesus Christ who laid down His life for His friends and thereby saved us from the evils of sin and death forevermore. We must avail ourselves of His love and mercy, in addition to the scientific evidence that we continue to acquire, in order to develop together the best strategies and action against COVID 19 and many more public health and other emergencies.
The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative Catholic, to the U.S. Supreme Court has ignited an uncomfortable debate about the intersection of religious faith, public policy and the federal courts that is likely to hang like a shadow over her confirmation hearings.
Republicans have preemptively attacked Democrats ahead of the Senate hearings, which are scheduled to begin Monday, accusing them of religious bigotry for questioning in the past Barrett’s ability to separate her faith from her work as a justice.
“This is the exact form that religious discrimination has taken in America for decades, especially when it’s come to public service,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said this week.
Democrats, meanwhile, have mostly taken pains to avoid talking publicly about Barrett’s Catholicism, having been bruised for doing so during her 2017 confirmation hearing to an appeals court judgeship. Instead, they intend to press her about her views on abortion and gay rights, as well as the Affordable Care Act.
Advertisement
If Barrett wins, her confirmation would mark the culmination of a decades-long push by conservatives to tilt the court to the right — an effort in which traditionalist Catholics have played a major role, providing much of the movement’s energy and strategy as well as its personnel. All five of the Republican nominees currently on the court are Catholic or, in the case of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, received a Catholic education.
“It is important to understand that the Catholic element is deeply wrapped up with the conservative movement to reshape the courts,” said Amanda Hollis-Brusky, a political science professor at Pomona College in Claremont and co-author of “Separate But Faithful: The Christian Right’s Radical Struggle to Transform Law and Legal Culture.”
“Amy Barrett represents that move to the right,” she said. “The conservative movement knows her very well.”
Advertisement
In part because Barrett has been more open about her positions than previous nominees, her beliefs have attracted extensive attention.
The key question, said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which will consider Barrett, is whether a nominee passes what he terms the “robing rule.”
“You’re entitled to your own beliefs, you’re entitled to your own faith, and it’s nobody’s business but your own unless you can’t leave it in the robing room, and you’re going to start making judicial decisions not on the law, but based on your personal views,” he said.
This week, Democrats asked the Trump administration for more information about a 2006 open letter in her local newspaper that Barrett signed that urged the abolition of abortion. The advertisement called the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide “barbaric.” She has also said she believes life begins at conception.
Advertisement
The group that sponsored the ad had also criticized in vitro fertilization because the process can involve the discarding of unused embryos. The advertisement did not mention that issue. But the possibility that Barrett might share that view prompted Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who has two children conceived by in vitro fertilization, to write a letter last week saying she felt “dread and anguish” over the possibility that Barrett “likely doesn’t believe my little Maile and my growing Abigail should have ever been born in the first place.”
Much of the attention to Barrett’s religion has focused on her involvement with People of Praise, a Christian group that some former members have likened to a cult. Founded by Catholics in 1971, the People of Praise was formed as evangelical-style ecumenical community. Members were encouraged to attend Mass and services at their local churches but later gather to conduct intense prayer services that could include speaking in tongues.
Critics of the group, including some former members, liken it to a cult, and accuse it of being controlling and say it espoused conservative views of women and sexuality.
Friends of Barrett and members of People of Praise said its structure was not unlike the male-dominated Roman Catholic Church, and it has a surprisingly ideologically diverse membership. They also noted that if the group’s aim was to subjugate women, Barrett didn’t get the memo — she has risen to the top of the legal world.
Advertisement
In more than a dozen interviews, friends and associates described Barrett as a devoted Catholic. The judge, her husband and seven children are members of St. Joseph Catholic Church in South Bend, Ind. They are often spotted attending its 10 a.m. Mass., one preferred by families. Barrett served on the parish’s pastoral council and sent her kids to the parish school, where she also volunteers.
“It is clear that faith is something that has been a constant and central part of her life,” said Paolo Carozza, a fellow law professor at Notre Dame whose family also attends St. Joseph. “She is very ordinary. Her religious life and faith play out in the context of what is a very busy and demanding life.”
Barrett was raised in New Orleans, where her family’s life revolved around the church. She attended an all-girls Catholic school. At Rhodes College in Tennessee, she debated whether to become an English professor or an attorney. She settled on the law, in part, because it would “allow me to be involved in real world things, in real world policy and shaping society,” Barrett told a group of Notre Dame alumni last year.
Advertisement
As she mulled over law schools, she quickly settled on Notre Dame, a conservative Catholic university. Like many Catholics in the 1980s, she had grown up “loving Notre Dame,” she told the alumni, and admired that it took seriously a mission to turn out lawyers who served others.
“I really wanted to choose a place where I would not just be educated as a lawyer,” she told the alumni, “but I wanted to be in a place where I would be developed and inspired as a whole person.”
After graduating, she clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, also a devout Catholic and legal hero among conservatives, who died in 2016. Nicole Garnett was clerking for Justice Clarence Thomas, another Catholic justice, and recalled Barrett seeking her help the next morning in cleaning the kitchen of the Missionaries of Charity after they served meals to AIDS patients.
“It struck me that everyone else was so wrapped up in their clerkships and working all the time, and she took this day off to serve people,” said Garnett, who has been friends with Barrett ever since and is also a law professor at Notre Dame. “That is just how she is, how her faith is reflected in her life. She has been that way since I met her.”
Advertisement
Barrett took a job as a professor at Notre Dame in 2002 and served as a full-time faculty member until being confirmed to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Barrett, who still teaches classes at the college as an adjunct professor, is described by students and fellow teachers as an exacting educator.
“In class, she was focused on the legal question,” said Laura Wolk, a former Notre Dame student. “She was very rigorous in that way. She never let her faith enter into the conversation.”
Wolk said the professor was approachable and, in a one-on-one setting, willing to offer spiritual mentoring.
“When there were times I was really struggling with something, I would go to her, and faith would come up, and she knew I spoke the language of faith, so she did, too,” said Wolk, who like other friends of Barrett’s declined to discuss details of her conversations with the judge.
Advertisement
Her friends were also reticent about Barrett’s ties to People of Praise, which go back to her childhood in New Orleans. Her father, Mike Coney, served on the group’s board, and her mother was a female leader of its branch in New Orleans. The parents believed so deeply in the group’s mission that Mike Coney resigned from the Shell Oil Co. because he had been promoted to a job that required him to move his family to Houston.
“Our life was in a covenant community in New Orleans,” Coney told People of Praise’s internal magazine, Vine and Branches, in 2006. “For the sake of our children and ourselves, we needed committed relationships with other Christians who were serious about their faith.”
Barrett and her husband, Jesse, became members of the People of Praise in South Bend when she joined the Notre Dame faculty. The group has a strong local presence and runs one of the city’s leading private schools, where the Barretts have sent some of their children.
Photographs of Barrett and her children have been featured in the People of Praise magazine reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post reported that a directory in 2010 listed her as being a “handmaid,” a female spiritual leader.
Advertisement
The term is derived from Mary’s description of herself in the Bible as “the handmaid of the Lord,” but has taken on a more sinister connotation since the airing in 2017 of Hulu’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” an adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian novel of the same title. People of Praise have since replaced the title with “women leaders.”
Adrian Reimers, a founding member, became disenchanted with People of Praise and was dismissed from the group in the 1980s. A philosophy professor at Notre Dame, Reimers wrote a 1997 book that criticized the community’s practices.
“Women play a decidedly secondary role to men,” wrote Reimers, who did not respond to emails seeking comment. He added that the People of Praise expects a married woman “to reflect the fact that she is under her husband’s authority.”
Advertisement
Barrett has described her marriage as a team effort and attributed much of her professional success to help from her husband, a busy lawyer in private practice. They share household duties, and friends say they both are constantly scrambling to shuttle their kids to practices, recitals and other events.
“At the start of our marriage, I imagined that we would run our household as partners,” Barrett said at the White House when President Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26. “As it has turned out, Jesse does far more than his share of the work. To my chagrin, I learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook.”
“Every decision and policy on economic or financial issues impacts the lives of individuals, families and the well-being of society as a whole.” With this premise, the Holy See is encouraging debt restructuring, and ultimately debt cancellation for the most vulnerable countries, to address the growing economic imbalances and the other crises they face as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, made this call on Thursday during the 75th Session of the UN General Assembly.
He pointed out in a statement that due to the demands imposed on the poorer countries by debt servicing and the economic impact of the pandemic, many of them are obliged to “divert scarce national resources from fundamental programs of education, health and infrastructure to debt payments.”
Archbishop Caccia reminded the UN, addressing the committee on macroeconomic policy in particular, that its work should ponder the “ethical implications to achieve economic prosperity for all in order to allow every person to thrive, and for countries to live in peace and stability.” As such, decisions and policies on economic or financial issues that impact the lives of individuals, families and the well-being of society as a whole “must be considered in a much broader light than only immediate financial gain or success.”
Archbishop Caccia highlighted that financial inclusion and sustainable development have been affected by the Covid-19 health crisis due to its devastating impact on employment, production and international and national trade. No one, he notes – from States to families and individuals – has escaped the economic hardships caused by the pandemic.
However, some have felt the impact more than others. Developing countries, he says, are being hit with “a triple economic shock of collapsing export demand, falling commodity prices and unprecedented capital flight,” in addition to handling the pandemic with often inadequate health systems.
Recovering together
To address these hardships, Archbishop Caccia proposes working together to ensure that the economic “recovery packages” and “regeneration packages” are serving the common good. In particular, he highlights two sectors that need special attention in the recovery efforts.
The first according to the Archbishop, is micro, small and medium businesses. He points out that to revive the economy, funding should reach a large number of medium and small business enterprises that “comprise the backbone of economies” in both developed and developing nations.
The second sector concerns workers in “informal” employment. He explained that we have a “particular responsibility” towards these people – men and women – who are being laid off their jobs in areas like construction, catering, hospitality, domestic service and retail among others, and as such, find it hard to provide for themselves and their families. Many of them, he notes, turn to charitable organizations and religious institutions for help. Some others, especially the migrants and those without proper documentation, are unable to file for benefits.
Debt restructuring/cancellation
Archbishop Caccia said there is extensive evidence that developing nations, faced with the obligation of diverting scarce resources towards debt repayment, risk undermining “integral development, weaken healthcare and education systems, as well as reduce the capacity of States to create conditions for the realization of fundamental human rights.”
The Archbishop, therefore, urged the international community to address the economic imbalances between nations by debt restructuring and ultimately cancellation “in recognition of the severe impacts of the medical, social and economic crises” faced by the most vulnerable countries as a result of the ongoing pandemic.
He also called on the international community to combat Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs) which, by diverting resources from public spending and cutting the capital available for private investment, “deprive countries of the desperately needed resources to provide public services, fund poverty-reduction programs and improve infrastructure.”
Concluding, Archbishop Caccia encouraged the UN to “find ways to stress the broader and ethical implications of economic activity in the years to come” and emphasized the need to transform the economy to be “genuinely at the service of the human person.”
Pope Francis
The Pope has repeatedly stressed the need for a new economic model especially as countries restart after the Covid-19 pandemic. He has often said that the “only way out of the current crisis is together.”
During his Urbi et orbi for Easter, he specifically addressed the topic of debt relief. “In light of the present circumstances,” Pope Francis said, “may international sanctions be relaxed, since these make it difficult for countries on which they have been imposed to provide adequate support to their citizens, and may all nations be put in a position to meet the greatest needs of the moment through the reduction, if not the forgiveness, of the debt burdening the balance sheets of the poorest nations.”
In his latest Encyclical Fratelli tutti, he spoke about debt relief within the context of the fundamental right of peoples to subsist and grow. This right, he said, is at times “severely restricted by the pressure created by foreign debt.” That debt stifles and severely limits development, he continued. “While respecting the principle that all legitimately acquired debt must be repaid, the way in which many poor countries fulfil this obligation should not end up compromising their very existence and growth.”
<div class="content-data">
<span>Friday, <a title="Browse all articles for October 2020" href="/2020/10">October</a> <a title="Browse all articles for October 9th 2020" href="/2020/10/09">9th</a> <a href="/2020" title="Browse all articles for 2020">2020</a> - 09:50 UTC</span>
<div class="tabs">
<span class="article-button">Full article</span>
</div>
</div>
<figure class=""><a href="/data/cache/noticias/78355/0x0/parliament.jpg" class="gallery" title="Results of the vote released on Thursday confirm their preliminary votes earlier this week on a landmark law to make the EU's climate targets legally binding"><img src="/data/cache/noticias/78355/760x480/parliament.jpg" alt="Results of the vote released on Thursday confirm their preliminary votes earlier this week on a landmark law to make the EU's climate targets legally binding"/></a>
<span>Results of the vote released on Thursday confirm their preliminary votes earlier this week on a landmark law to make the EU's climate targets legally binding</span> </figure><div class="img-container">
<figure class="small"><a class="gallery" href="/data/cache/noticias/78355/0x0/emissions-de.jpg" title="Groups representing investors with €62 trillion in assets under management, urged EU leaders to agree an emissions-cutting target of at least 55% for 2030"><img src="/data/cache/noticias/78355/300x190/emissions-de.jpg" alt="Groups representing investors with €62 trillion in assets under management, urged EU leaders to agree an emissions-cutting target of at least 55% for 2030"/></a>
<span>Groups representing investors with €62 trillion in assets under management, urged EU leaders to agree an emissions-cutting target of at least 55% for 2030</span> </figure></div>
European Union lawmakers have backed a plan to cut greenhouse gases by 60% from 1990 levels by 2030, hoping member states will not try to water the target down during upcoming negotiations.
Results of the vote released on Thursday confirm their preliminary votes earlier this week on a landmark law to make the EU's climate targets legally binding. The law, which contains the new EU emissions-cutting goal for 2030, passed by a large majority of 231 votes.
Parliament must now agree the final law with the EU’s 27 member countries, only a few of whom have said they would support a 60% emissions-cutting target. Lawmakers want to avoid countries whittling it away to below the level of emissions cuts proposed by the EU executive of at least 55%. The EU’s current 2030 target is a 40% emissions cut.
Parliament also supported a proposal to launch an independent scientific council to advise on climate policy – a system already in place in Britain and Sweden – and a carbon budget, setting out the emissions the EU could produce without scuppering its climate commitments.
In the same vein on Wednesday the European Parliament symbolically rejected the European Union-Mercosur free-trade agreement due to what several parliamentarians have called “deep concern about the environmental policy of Jair Bolsonaro.”
In an unprecedented move, Parliament’s plenary approved an amendment in a report on the application of European trade policy, emphasizing that the “EU-Mercosur agreement cannot be ratified in its current form.”
This amendment received 345 votes in favor, 295 against, and 56 abstentions. It is highly symbolic and not mandatory, but it reflects the extremely difficult environment to implement the bi-regional agreement which has been negotiated over the past 20 years.
In practice, the need for additional guarantees by the Bolsonaro government in the environmental area will be essential for Europeans to decide whether or not to move to ratify the bi-regional agreement.
With climate-related impacts such as more intense heat waves and wildfires already felt across Europe, and thousands of young people taking to the streets last month to demand tougher action, the EU is under pressure to ramp up its climate policies.
Groups representing investors with €62 trillion in assets under management, plus hundreds of businesses and non-governmental organizations on Thursday wrote to EU leaders urging them to agree an emissions-cutting target of at least 55% for 2030.
Scientists say this target, which has been proposed by the European Commission, is the minimum effort needed to give the EU a realistic shot at becoming climate neutral by 2050. The commission wants the new 2030 goal finalized by the end of the year.
However, the climate law will require compromise from member countries. Wealthier states with large renewable energy resources are pushing for deeper emissions cuts, but coal-heavy countries including Poland and Czech Republic fear the economic fallout of tougher targets.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has imposed new restrictions on businesses, mass gatherings and places of worship in towns and New York City neighborhoods with high rates of coronavirus infections — some of which also have large populations of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews. An Orthodox advocacy group, Agudath Israel of America, has filed a federal lawsuit against the new regulations on the grounds that they violate the right to free exercise of religion.
I have devoted much of my career to protecting the free exercise of religion. It is a rare thing for me to side with a government that seeks to restrict anyone’s religious practices. But this time, the government is on stronger ground.
Few constitutional rights are absolute. Free speech can be censored in extreme cases, as when it incites imminent violence. The right to freely exercise religion includes the right to take religiously motivated actions — engaging in worship and rituals and following moral rules. Very occasionally, such actions do serious harm. They cannot be absolutely protected.
No one reasonably believes that free exercise of religion protects a right to conduct human sacrifice. Faith-healing parents are prosecuted when they withhold medical care from a child, and the child dies. There is no constitutional right to refuse vaccinations for religious reasons.
With respect to both vaccinations and withholding medical care, legislatures have enacted protections for religious objectors. But no court has ever protected such conduct under the Constitution.
Pandemic restrictions are like these examples. Covid-19 kills some and permanently injures others; the threat to human life is real and immediate. Those who flout the rules endanger everyone around them, and this is sufficient reason for regulating even a worship service.
Whether a particular regulation is justified depends on its facts. How widespread is the virus in these neighborhoods? Do the regulated zones closely correspond to places where the infection rate is significantly higher? What regulation is actually needed to save lives?
The governor should have to prove his factual claims in the Agudath Israel lawsuit. But assuming that he has the facts approximately right, then the new regulations are mostly justified. The devil is in the details.
Under the Supreme Court’s current constitutional interpretation, the right to free exercise of religion is a special form of protection against discrimination. Religious exercise can be regulated only if it falls under generally applicable rules. If a restriction has secular exceptions, it must also have religious exceptions. These requirements are a challenge to governments writing Covid rules, which must be deployed quickly, adapted to rapidly changing conditions and applied to a multitude of human activities.
Lawyers for religious groups objecting to restrictions can focus on any arguably analogous secular activity that is regulated less intensively than religious activity. But the secular activities comparable to worship services are not retail stores, where few customers linger, but movie theaters, concert halls and other places where people gather in significant numbers and remain for long periods.
Nevada had trouble explaining why churches were more tightly regulated than casinos, another place where people come and stay for hours at a time. But in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court refused to interfere even with Nevada’s regulation, and this decision may imply an unusual degree of judicial deference in the face of medical emergency.
So Governor Cuomo has wide discretion, but he does need to make sure that any rules are truly nondiscriminatory. And it’s unclear if New York’s new rules are.
The governor’s website says that the rules prohibit all mass gatherings in red zones. There is no discrimination in that. But the actual executive order applies only to “nonessential gatherings of any size.” What gatherings are “essential” is not defined. And that is a problem.
As compared to a total prohibition, houses of worship in red zones benefit from an exception — they are limited to 25 percent of capacity or 10 people, but at least they can meet. In orange and yellow zones, houses of worship can admit larger numbers than other types of gatherings.
But some of these other gatherings can claim to be essential, and houses of worship, it seems, cannot. This is a form of discrimination that would normally require compelling justification.
In yellow zones, schools and restaurants can open without capacity limits; houses of worship are restricted to 50 percent of capacity. People linger in restaurants, and students stay in school all day; it is hard to see how the governor can defend these distinctions.
Political attacks on the new rules have emphasized that the state did not restrict the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer. Those were also mass gatherings, although they were outside, and it appears that more people wore masks, but that was hardly uniform. No large outbreak has been linked to the marches, but that could not have been predicted at the time. Both political free speech and free exercise of religion are at the heart of the First Amendment; speech is not constitutionally more important than religion.
The state’s failure to regulate the Black Lives Matters rallies was a mistake. But the state is not forever limited to the least restrictive regulation it has ever indulged in. It can restrict both political rallies and worship services if that is truly necessary to protect public health.
At the same time, the governor must define, and try to defend, the exception for “essential” gatherings. And he will struggle to rationalize the unequal treatment of schools, restaurants and houses of worship in yellow zones.
The lesson here can be briefly stated: Nondiscriminatory rules to protect human life can be applied to the exercise of religion. But the rules must really be nondiscriminatory.
Douglas Laycock is a law professor at the University of Virginia.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
