A Francis Admirer and a Francis Skeptic Debate the Pope's Legacy
On this episode of 'Interesting Times,' Ross Douthat is joined by the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and the editor of America Magazine, to reflect on the legacy of Pope Francis and the challenges facing the next papacy.
Below is an edited transcript of an episode of 'Interesting Times.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
Ross Douthat: The death of Pope Francis ends, or at least temporarily suspends, a tumultuous period in the life of the world's largest religious institution. A period where the pope was often pitted against his own bishops and cardinals in arguments about how much, and in what direction, Roman Catholicism should change.
My guest today and I were often on the opposite side of those debates, and so I'm hoping that our conversation can help illuminate the stakes in Roman Catholicism's conflicts, the prospects for the church's continued unity and the implications of these debates for the future of religion in the modern world.
Father James Martin is one of the most famous Catholic priests in the United States. I think the only Jesuit to ever appear on Stephen Colbert's late night TV program, and the author of many, many books. Most recently, a meditation on the New Testament story of Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court rules Wisconsin law makes Catholic Charities exempt from unemployment system
Unemployment benefits application (photo by Getty Images) This is a developing story and will be updated. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Catholic Charities organization in Wisconsin doesn't have to take part in the Wisconsin unemployment insurance (UI) system. The ruling overturns a 4-3 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision issued in March 2024 that declared the work of Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. of the Superior Diocese of the Catholic Church doesn't get a pass from Wisconsin's UI law on religious grounds. The Wisconsin ruling, written by Justice Anne Walsh Bradley, declared that the Catholic Charities work is 'secular in nature' and that the agency and its subsidiary organizations that took part in the case 'are not operated primarily for religious purposes' as defined in the UI law's religious exemption. In Thursday's ruling, Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote for the Court that arguments the Wisconsin high court majority made amounted to making preferences of one religious denomination over another. Her ruling noted that the church offers its own unemployment compensation program for laid-off workers and dismissed the suggestion that the organizations were 'more likely to leave their employees without unemployment benefits.' The Wisconsin ruling held that the agencies' work was not religious in nature because they didn't attempt to preach the Catholic faith to participants and did not serve only Catholics. 'Petitioners' Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria,' Sotomayor wrote. The ruling quoted from the dissent by Justice Rebecca Bradley in the Wisconsin decision. 'Wisconsin's exemption,' Sotomayor wrote, 'as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices. Indeed, petitioners' eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The Wisconsin UI law exempts all churches, church conventions or church associations 'without differentiating between employees actually involved in religious works' and those who are not, Sotomayor wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas, while joining in the unanimous opinion, wrote a separate concurrence stating that because the Wisconsin ruling did not defer to the Bishop of Superior's assertion that Catholic Charities and its affiliates are 'an arm of the Diocese, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine.' In a separate concurrence Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson signaled how states could ensure that nonprofit employees of religiously associated organizations are covered by UI — by focusing on the work involved rather than its underlying motivations to determine who is and who is not exempt. When the federal law was revised in 1970 to include nonprofit employees in state UI programs, Congress exempted certain church-affiliated employees. The goal, Jackson wrote, was to avoid the state getting involved in a dispute 'over the sufficiency of a fired employee's prayers or the accuracy of their scriptural teaching.' The intent of Congress was to exempt 'a narrow category of church-affiliated entities' that could produce such an entanglement 'precisely because their work involves preparing individuals for religious life,' Jackson wrote. She concluded: 'It is perfectly consistent with the opinion the Court hands down today for States to align their [federally-based] religious-purposes exemptions with Congress's true focus.' 24-154_2b82 SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump urges Europe to reform unfair tax policies
The Trump administration's announcement last month that it was hiking tariffs on Europe is a wakeup call. For years, European governments have been treating U.S. tech companies as an ATM. Europe needs to come to the table on its discriminatory treatment of American businesses before the July 9 tariff deadline. To hear Europe's leaders howl over the latest tariff threat from President Trump, one might think that after putting the squeeze on the Old World, greedy Uncle Sam is coming back for more. The truth is that Eurozone bureaucrats have turned the targeting of U.S. companies into an art form. Consider the Eurozone's digital services taxes. Services such as content streaming, digital advertising and digital data provided by foreign companies working in Europe are taxed in addition to the tax they pay to their home countries. Naturally, as the global leader in tech innovation, it is American countries that disproportionately bear the burden. Brussels bureaucrats further hone the targeting by applying these taxes exclusively to companies above an arbitrary revenue threshold, ensuring that only large American tech competitors are hit. Six of the seven 'gatekeepers' subject to strict regulatory rules under the EU's Digital Markets Act are American. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of the companies that are subject to the most strident provisions of the EU's Digital Services Act are U.S. firms. Since 2018, U.S. companies have accounted for 83 percent of all EU data privacy fines. While U.S. regulators are satisfied with regulating domestic companies, Europeans are not shy about their extraterritorial shakedowns. French officials regularly call their digital service tax a GAFA or GAFAM tax, a the acronym being a reference to 'Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft.' Similarly, Europe's special levy on streaming services has been dubbed the 'Lex Netflix' after the American entertainment giant. Taxes and red tape might be economically-moribund Europe's only growth export industry. In a Truth Social post last month, Trump torched Europe's 'ridiculous corporate penalties' and 'unfair and unjustified lawsuits against American companies.' America's largest companies are singing the same tune. When EU regulators hit Apple and Meta with $800 million in fines last month, a Meta spokesperson called out the European money grab for what it is — 'a multi-billion-dollar tariff' on American companies. These fines do not take into account the enormous day-to-day compliance costs that U.S. firms must pay for the privilege of doing business in the Eurozone. Staying on top of EU digital rules runs Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Amazon and Microsoft $2.2 billion annually. American companies are forecasted to forgo more than $2 trillion of revenue due to Europe's massive regulatory burden. Apple and Meta recently chose to delay the launch of new features on their products in Europe rather than run afoul of the Eurozone's strict AI rules. To those watching Trump closely over the last decade, last week's escalation against Europe should have come as no surprise. In his first term, Trump initiated investigations into digital service taxes in Austria, France and Italy, issuing several reports on the findings. Since returning to office, Trump has complained that EU treats the U.S. worse than China. What's new is the convergence between the White House and Silicon Valley on Europe. Leading American tech executives have become increasingly outspoken on the regulatory hostility coming from Brussels. Meta's Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan recently criticized the European Commission for trying to 'handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards.' These concerns appear to be getting through to Team Trump. At last Friday's press conference, Trump cited the $14.4 billion European court judgement against Apple that has been a major thorn in the tech giant's side. The Trump administration's tariffs come at a near-term cost to American consumers. But it is equally clear that U.S. companies are getting the short end of the stick in Europe. The outcome of the trade negotiations between the U.S. and EU will tell whether the tariff bet pays off. A deal with Europe that's limited to industrial goods isn't good enough. The EU must end its discriminatory taxes and call a ceasefire on its lawfare against American innovation. Michael Toth is a practicing lawyer and a research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules that Catholic groups were unlawfully barred from a religious tax exemption
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Catholic Church-affiliated charitable groups, saying they were wrongly denied religious exemptions from a Wisconsin tax that funds unemployment benefits. The justices ruled unanimously that the state's decision unlawfully discriminated against the groups on the basis of religion under the free exercise clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. The court rejected a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that said that the groups operating under the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were not sufficiently religious in purpose. The state already provided exemptions for religious institutions. The First Amendment has long been interpreted to exempt religious entities from taxation. Writing for the court, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the importance of the government remaining neutral when it comes to different religions. "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny," Sotomayor said. But Wisconsin had "transgressed that principle," she added. The groups involved in the case — Headwaters, Barron County Developmental Services, Diversified Services and Black River Industries — primarily serve developmentally disabled people. Their programs are open to non-Catholics. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission had concluded the charitable groups were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2024 upheld the state commission's finding, saying the groups' activities were mostly secular in nature and that they do not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials.' The Wisconsin unemployment compensation system was set up in 1932 to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs. Similar programs in other states and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act also include religious exemptions. The Catholic groups had strong backing at the Supreme Court from other Christian sects and different religious faiths. This article was originally published on
