(RNS) — It is easy to despair over the Holy Land. For almost 80 years it has been a festering sore, and today, after decades of peace efforts, there is no end in sight.

After the genocide inflicted on Jews by the Nazis during World War II, Jews wanted a homeland where they could be self-governing and safe. Returning to Israel, their original homeland until the destruction of the Jewish state by the Roman Empire, was a longed-for hope.

For a variety of reasons (guilt, sympathy, geopolitical gamesmanship and even antisemitism), the West supported a Jewish homeland. Worries about the Palestinians currently living in what had been ancient Israel were put aside.

From a nation of refugees surrounded by enemies, Israel has grown into an economic and military powerhouse. A democratic ally to the United States, it has come to be seen as a bulwark against Iran.

But the Palestinian question remains. Many were pushed as refugees into Jordan. Others live under dire circumstances in the West Bank and Gaza. Angry at the loss of their land and independence, many have turned to violence. In a search for its own security, Israel has responded to violence with even more violence in an endless cycle that has no foreseeable conclusion.

International experts, including those in the Vatican, have insisted on a two-state solution where Palestinians gain sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza in return for long-term peace for the Israelis. After previous steps toward the two-state solution have faltered, Israeli settlers have now occupied so much Palestinian territory as to make this impossible without their removal.

The terrorist actions of some settlers toward Palestinians have made peace more remote, while the Israeli government, turning a blind eye to settler attacks, severely punishes teenage Palestinians who throw rocks.

Corruption and incompetence among Palestinian politicians have made the two-state solution more difficult. Disillusioned, Palestinians in Gaza turned years ago to Hamas leaders who seek the destruction of Israel through terrorism and violence.

The latest war in Gaza was begun by Hamas, which attacked Israel, slaughtered civilians and kidnapped hostages. Israel’s military response went far past the usual retaliatory attacks, aimed at vanquishing Hamas once and for all. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, cities leveled. Women and children are now starving as refugees in the south of Gaza. Almost all food and other supplies are being held up at the border. One war crime (taking of civilian hostages) does not legitimate another (the starving of civilians).

The United States continues to call for a two-state solution while supplying Israel with billions of dollars in weapons and ammunition. Some Palestinians, meanwhile, have taken up the slogan “from the river to the sea,” even as some Israelis advocate pushing the remaining Palestinians from Gaza into Egypt and establishing a “Greater Israel,” its own version of “from the river to the sea.”

It is time for the United States to limit military aid to Israel to defensive weapons — continuing to supply Israel with anti-missile protection but preventing the use of our 500-pound bombs in Gaza, where they have resulted in widespread destruction and numerous civilian casualties.

Though it may have little impact on the war, such limits would send a signal that Israel must be more careful to avoid civilian casualties. We must insist that Israel allow food aid into Gaza.

American presidents have long failed to bring peace to the area, though a few, Jimmy Carter most of all, made incremental progress. But the land is at a tipping point. If Israel attacks the Gaza city of Rafah, where almost half of Gaza’s 2.3 million population have sought refuge, it will be a humanitarian catastrophe. If it results in pushing the remaining Palestinians into Egypt, which does not want them, such an attack will destabilize Egypt and provide another place for cross-border attacks on Israel.

Though a desire to destroy Hamas is understandable, Israel should remember that the United States felt the same way about al-Qaida. After it was destroyed, ISIS took its place. Destroying Hamas will not bring peace to Israel. Though Israel doesn’t want to negotiate with Hamas, it needs to remember that you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends.

Israel has squandered the sympathy of the world by its excessive use of force in Gaza. In the United States, 55% of the American people disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza, according to Gallup, while only 36% approve. Students are demonstrating against the war on college campuses, mostly nonviolently, but with some excesses we have come to expect from students.

It would be easy to give up on our own ability to talk about the Holy Land. Having lived through the protests against the Vietnam War, I am saddened that today’s college administrators, students and media are making the same mistakes as those of an earlier era.

Demonstrators need to police themselves so that the extremists who speak loudest do not appear to speak for all. They should do more singing and less shouting. They should express love, not hate. They should not alienate their fellow students by interrupting classes or graduation. The goal is to win people over to their side, not merely to vent anger.

Administrators should avoid calling the police, and instead encourage dialogue and discussion. They should encourage faculty to debate the issues. They should defend free speech but oppose violence.

And the media need to focus on the big picture, not the few excesses. They need to interview real students and campus leaders, not just the loudmouths. Sadly, it is still true that “If it bleeds, it leads.”

History gives us little reason to hope. Older Americans remember the disaster that was the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Its anti-war demonstrations and police violence led to the defeat of Hubert Humphrey by Richard Nixon, who continued the war until 1975.

Now, 56 years later, the Democrats are meeting in Chicago again. Chaos at this year’s convention could kill President Joe Biden’s chances of reelection and ensure victory for Donald Trump, who has promised to let Israel do whatever it wants.

So far, Biden has had little success in getting Benjamin Netanyahu to stop making war on Palestinian civilians. There is a glimmer of light in that Israel has allowed a few more aid trucks into Gaza and Hamas leaders have arrived in Egypt for talks. We have to persevere and have hope because the alternative is too terrible to imagine.

The good news is there are ways to reduce and eliminate the growth in global warming; the bad news is I am not sure we will implement them fast enough.

(RNS) — After reading last week’s column, “Global warming is here and getting worse,” my brother, who is president of a Jesuit high school, responded, “Great article, but you just describe the problems. I’d never let you out of my office until you gave me a solution.”

The good news is there are ways to reduce and eliminate the growth in global warming; the bad news is I am not sure we will implement them fast enough.

As I mentioned in my column last week, human-caused climate change threatens life as we know it on the planet. Sadly, too many people deny the science or don’t make it a priority. As a result, some politicians are not willing to make the tough decisions to deal with climate change.

First, the good news. What can we do to deal with global warming?

Economists are almost unanimous in saying the best way to slow down global warming is through a tax on carbon emissions. This is basic economic theory. If you tax something, you make it more expensive and people will use less of it. This approach uses the power of the marketplace rather than government regulations to influence people’s decisions.

A tax on carbon emissions would make energy from fossil fuels more expensive, which makes alternative sources of energy more attractive. Customers will demand cheaper alternatives and more energy-efficient devices, and investors will be willing to put their money toward responding to these demands knowing there is a market for it.

Theoretically, this reduces the need for government regulations and investment since the market would encourage thousands of entrepreneurs to try various approaches until some succeed. This is why the auto industry preferred raising gasoline taxes to government efficiency standards.

The problem with taxing carbon is political. Voters don’t like taxes and politicians are afraid to enact them.

The Biden administration flips this idea on its head by enacting tax credits for alternative sources of energy. In other words, instead of making fossil fuels more expensive, the administration is making alternative energy cheaper. On top of this is direct government spending to foster alternative sources of energy by installing charging stations and by purchasing electric cars and trucks for government agencies.

Tax credits are politically more acceptable than taxes or government spending. Voters love tax credits, even though tax reformers hate them. Politicians find them easy to vote for and hard to criticize.

Now that the credits are in the law, Republicans are going to find it hard to repeal them. Individual and corporate taxpayers will get mad at anyone trying to repeal what they now consider their right. Republicans will be accused of trying to raise taxes, something they always accuse Democrats of doing.

Another advantage of tax credits is that, although more energy-efficient equipment is cheaper in the long run, it tends to be more expensive in the short term. A rational consumer should be willing to pay more for a refrigerator, air conditioner or car if in the long run it is cheaper. But most consumers are not rational, or they don’t have the money to afford energy-efficient purchases. Most people look at the sticker price, not the cost over a five-year period.

In response, government regulations can set energy standards for equipment or simply ban the sale of inefficient products, like incandescent lightbulbs. It can also give a tax credit for the purchase of energy-efficient equipment, which brings down the original sticker price. The Biden administration has done both.

The good news is that government and private research and investments have brought down the cost of alternative energy more dramatically than the experts expected. The cost of wind and solar energy is now cheaper than oil, gas or nuclear.

“The world has produced nearly three billion solar panels at this point, and every one of those has been an opportunity for people to try to improve the process,” Gregory Nemet, a solar power expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told The New York Times. “And all of those incremental improvements add up to something very dramatic.”

Europe is now getting more energy from wind and solar than from fossil fuels, thanks in part to Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. China, because of government investment, is still outperforming Europe and the United States, but the growth of solar and wind energy is expected to be dramatic in the coming years. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, with its subsidies for domestic investment in alternative energy, has forced European countries to come up with their own programs to compete.

A tsunami of investment in alternative energy is coming, and much of it is occurring in red states and rural areas that traditionally vote Republican.

Flat rural areas like the Midwest and Texas have the steady wind needed for energy production. Southern states have the sun. Green jobs in red states are going to eventually impact American politics surrounding global warming. Republicans are going to have to change their position on global warming or they are going to begin losing elections in their backyards.

The biggest obstacles to alternative energy are no longer technical or economic. They are political. First, there are campaign donations, phony science and propaganda funded by fossil fuel interests.

Second, there is NIMBY-ism, “not in my backyard.”

Liberal states in the Northeast have beach towns that don’t want their ocean views “desecrated” by wind turbines. And to make full use of wind and solar power, the electric grid needs to be upgraded, and no one wants transmission lines near their homes. Even environmentalists object to wind farms over concerns birds and bats will be killed by the turbines.

Environmental and local-control laws favored by liberals in recent decades are now making it difficult to deal with global warming. But we cannot afford to delay our response. We have ways to deal with global warming and they are improving every day. The question is, still, do we have the will to save God’s creation?

We are like frogs in a pot of water being slowly cooked as the temperature rises. We don’t have the sense to get out of the pot, let alone turn off the heat.

(RNS) — Anyone who does not believe in global warming after what we endured during July is so deep in denial they would not flee a burning house if their clothes were on fire. And yet millions of Americans still do not accept the facts revealed by science. Rather, they continue to believe the lies propagated by the fossil fuel industry, their political cronies and the pseudo scientists who have prostituted themselves to the industry.

Just as bad are all of us who accept the science of climate change, but don’t do anything to stop the madness.

We are like frogs in a pot of water being slowly cooked as the temperature rises. We don’t have the sense to get out of the pot, let alone turn off the heat.

July was the hottest month on record in all of human history. Emergency rooms in Phoenix were flooded with heatstroke victims as well as people burned by roads, sidewalks and metal equipment turned hot in the sun. Heat actually kills more people in the United States than hurricanes. Globally, 5 million people a year die from the heat.

The elderly, the sick, the poor and the homeless suffer the most from the heat. The rich and the middle class can retreat to their air-conditioned bunkers, which makes matters worse with increased CO2 emissions from the power plants that create the electricity to run our air conditioners.

Others died from floods caused by warm air that holds more water during storms. The Northeast was especially hard-hit this summer, while earlier Pakistan was devastated by floods. The western United States welcomed rains that filled reservoirs, but it was also hit by floods that destroyed homes and farmlands. Drought will inevitably return in the future.

The heat and floods cost billions of dollars in damage and in lost productivity. They are creating more climate refugees who must migrate to survive.

As awful as this all sounds, it is only the beginning. We are doing permanent damage to the home in which we live.

Around the world, mountain glaciers are shrinking. When they are gone, millions of people will lose dependable sources of water.

Warm water and increased acidity are killing coral reefs around the world, reefs that took hundreds of years to grow, reefs that are the nurseries of the ocean.

When these reefs are gone, it will be the end of thousands of ocean species that breed or live in the coral reefs. They will never recover. It will be the end of the oceans as we know them, along with the fish we eat.

Meanwhile, the oceans continue to rise. There is less ice in the water around Antarctica this winter, which does not have an immediate effect, but it means the ice on the continent will be threatened. There is less ice at the North Pole.

Not only does all this melting add to ocean levels, it also means open oceans will absorb more heat since ice reflects sunlight.

The only remaining question is how fast this climate apocalypse will come. Some scientists think the worst will not come until the next century, while others warn of tipping points that could bring it on quickly.

“If we are able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. sea level in 2100 is projected to be around 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher on average than it was in 2000,” according to NOAA. “On a pathway with high greenhouse gas emissions and rapid ice sheet collapse, models project that average sea level rise for the contiguous United States could be 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) by 2100 and 3.9 meters (13 feet) by 2150.”

Two climate scenarios for quicker disaster are terrifying.

One is that all the ice on Greenland destabilizes and slides into the sea. If all the Greenland ice melts, sea levels will rise by 6.5 feet. If the entire Antarctic ice sheet melts, sea levels will rise by 190 feet.

Coastal cities will be flooded, displacing hundreds of millions of people. Such a catastrophe will also upset the Atlantic Gulf Stream that warms Europe. Ironically, under global warming, Europe without the Gulf Stream could become as cold as Alaska, since they are on the same latitude.

The other tipping point could come from unfreezing the Siberian permafrost, which might release enough methane (a potent greenhouse gas) to end the world as we know it. The planet could quickly warm, melting ice everywhere.

In the 22^nd century and beyond, when people have forgotten the wars, the pandemics and the economic and political crises of the 20^th and 21^st centuries, they will not honor us for our technological innovations.

They will not care about Donald Trump or who is “woke.” They will curse us for destroying our planet, their only home. Today, we ask why Germans did nothing to stop genocide under the Nazis. Future generations will ask why we did nothing to stop global warming. It’s not like we did not know.

Millions will die in the coming catastrophe, perhaps half the world’s population. Billions more will suffer privations on an impoverished planet for centuries to come. Governments will collapse into chaos; the whole world will look like Haiti does now.

The Earth will never recover. Perhaps in a few millennia, other species will evolve that can live in the wasteland that is Earth, but it will never be the same.

For believers this is even more depressing because we are destroying God’s creation, God’s greatest gift to us. Rather than treasuring this gift, we are like children who break all our toys on Christmas Day.

Christians profess that we should take up our cross and follow Jesus. Instead, we are making crosses for future generations to carry.

Jesus tells us, “Do not be afraid.” I must confess that I am terrified by what is coming even though I know I will be dead before the worst happens. For once, I am happy I don’t have children. I pray for a miracle, a deus ex machina, even though we do not deserve one.

To those not yet born, all I can say is, “I’m sorry.” But I don’t expect you to forgive us.

If I see a headline in the newspaper or online, I skip over to another story. If it comes up on my NPR podcast, I touch the arrow that advances me to the next story. If it is on CNN, I switch to the Hallmark channel.

I feel guilty, but I simply cannot take it anymore. I am sick of the violence and our country’s inability to do anything about it. I see no point in listening to the same story over and over again.

News stories about mass shootings always follow the same 10-point template: 1) initial confusion about what happened; 2) onsite interviews with those who escaped the scene; 3) talking heads speculate about the motive of the gunman; 4) a press conference by police chief and mayor; 5) calls for greater gun control from Democrats; 6) calls for thoughts and prayers from Republicans; 7)  a Trump tweet; 8) more speculation on motive of gunman; 9) coverage of funerals; 10) interviews with victims’ families.

Nothing changes, except people buy more guns.

We move on to other news until the next shooting. It doesn’t matter where the shooting takes place — gay bar, church, primary school, university, shopping center, baseball game or on the street. Nothing shocks us enough to make us demand change.

And yet, mass shootings are only a minor contributor to the deaths from gun violence. Gun violence is common in most inner cities, but it gets little coverage in newspapers read by the white community. And gun suicides, spousal shootings, and accidents are so common that even white victims are ignored unless a child is involved.

I am afraid that others may soon respond to mass shootings that same way I do, the same way we do to other gun violence—ignore it and move on. No matter how horrible something is, if it is repeated time and time again, we get accustomed to it.

We can’t let this happen. Religious leaders cry out but few listen.

From Rome, Pope Francis took notice of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton on August 3 and 4, where at least 29 were killed and dozens more were injured. These followed closely after the killings at the garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif.

Texas Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the shooting “terrible, senseless and inhumane.”

Franciscan Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, KY, tweeted: “More senseless gun killings… more white nationalism… more disregard for the sanctity of human life… We need to create the beloved community Jesus envisions now.”

Many Catholic leaders have called for government action to curb gun violence. In their 2000 pastoral statement on criminal justice, the bishops wrote, “We support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

For many years, the USCCB has supported what it calls “reasonable measures” to address the problem of gun violence.  These include:

• A total ban on assault weapons, which the USCCB supported when the ban passed in 1994 and when Congress failed to renew it in 2004.
• Measures that control the sale and use of firearms, such as universal background checks for all gun purchases;
• Limitations on civilian access to high-capacity weapons and ammunition magazines;
• A federal law to criminalize gun trafficking;
• Improved access to and increased resources for mental health care and earlier interventions;
• Regulations and limitations on the purchasing of handguns;
• Measures that make guns safer, such as locks that prevent children and anyone other than the owner from using the gun without permission and supervision; and
• An honest assessment of the toll of violent images and experiences which inundate people, particularly our youth.

The bishops also support a “more appropriate minimum age” for gun ownership and a ban on “bump stocks.”

None of these recommendations has gone anywhere. We still do not have sensible regulations of handguns, let alone a ban on assault weapons.

The country needs to do something before mass shootings become so common that people follow my bad example and start ignoring them. Over 60 percent of the public wants stricter gun control. True, gun control is controversial, but the Pew Research Center found bipartisan support for some proposals

“Around nine-in-ten Republicans and Democrats (both 89%) say people with mental illnesses should be prevented from buying guns,” according to a 2018 report from Pew. “Nearly as many in both parties (86% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans) say people on federal no-fly or watch lists should be barred from purchasing firearms. And majorities of both Democrats (91%) and Republicans (79%) favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.’

But Congress cannot even enact such minor controls. Enough is enough. We must demand that our government do something about mass shootings and other forms of gun violence.

Fasting is seen as a way of doing penance for sin as well as being united with Jesus, who spent 40 days fasting in the desert. The practice of fasting during the 40 days of Lent used to be mandatory for Catholics, with no eating between meals. Also, breakfast and lunch combined were not supposed to be more than your main meal.

While fasting is not obligatory anymore, it is encouraged. We should, of course, put a priority on giving up those things we should not be doing anyway: smoking, drugs, pornography, junk food, too much alcohol, etc.

Doing something, rather than giving up something, is also an option — regular exercise for many people, including me, is a penance.

When the Rev. James Martin’s non-Catholic college roommates found out he was planning to give up something for Lent, they responded that he shouldn’t be the one to decide; he could cheat and pick something he didn’t care about anyway. So began a tradition of his roommates telling Father Martin what he had to give up each Lent.

The medieval rules for fasting had the effect of forcing the upper classes to eat like poor people, who, by comparison, were always fasting. So, if you really want to get into the spirit of Lent, try surviving on what can be bought with a month’s worth of food stamps — which aren’t valid for alcohol or hot prepared foods. Give what you save to the poor.

Another way to update Lent to the needs of the 21st century would be a carbon fast. If we all cut our carbon consumption during Lent that would not only be a good penance, it would help the planet. Likewise, many churches are encouraging members to give up plastic for Lent.

Fasting is only one way to observe this ancient tradition. You can also choose to be nourished by the Word of God. The daily liturgical Scripture readings during the 40 days before Easter were specially chosen for the education of catechumens, those who wanted to become Christians. To prepare for their baptisms at the Easter Vigil, the catechumens were invited to the cathedral each day, where the bishop would explain the faith to them using the Scripture readings.

In a sense, these readings were the original catechism of the Catholic Church, in an era before widespread literacy and mass-produced books. They are a collection of the greatest passages from Scripture. For those who are already baptized, they are a refresher course in what it means to be a Christian.

Ideally, the best way to hear these readings would be to go to daily Mass during Lent, but if that is not possible, there are lots of ways to find the Lenten readings for yourself. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has them on its website. An app called iBreviary can be downloaded to your smartphone or tablet.

Using the podcast New American Bible or NAB, you can listen to the readings while commuting or walking (exercise body and soul at the same time). Or you can have Alexa read them to you using her skill  “Catholic Daily.”

I tend to listen to Alexa while going to sleep or waking up in the morning. She makes me laugh every time she mispronounces “responsorial,” as in “responsorial psalm.” For the last couple of weeks she was also having trouble with the Book of Sirach. The NAB uses humans who don’t make these mistakes. You might even recognize your bishop’s voice every once in a while as bishops, priests and laity were used in recording the readings.

For a long time, sadly, Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible, but today the church promotes the readings from Scripture. The daily Scripture readings during Lent are a great way to reintroduce yourself to God’s Word.

The word “Lent” means “spring,” a time for renewal and new birth. Along with the sacraments, it is the Scriptures that renew us and give new life to the Christian community. Whether you read or listen, the Word of God is essential to the Christian life. That is something to do for Lent.

For decades, people have been hoping for such a statement from a pontiff, which Francis made in a public address to the Roman Curia, the offices in the Vatican that help him govern the church.

He acknowledged that it was “undeniable that some in the past, out of irresponsibility, disbelief, lack of training, inexperience…or spiritual and human myopia, treated many cases without the seriousness and promptness that was due.”

“That must never happen again,” he said.

Francis even gave “heartfelt thanks to those media professionals who were honest and objective and sought to unmask these predators and to make their victims’ voices heard.” He asked people not to be silent, but to “bring it objectively to light, since the greater scandal in this matter is that of cloaking the truth.”

To those who have abused minors, he said, “convert and hand yourself over to human justice, and prepare for divine justice.”

He then quoted the words of Christ: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals! For it is necessary that scandals come, but woe to the man by whom the scandal comes!” (Matthew 18:6-7).

It is highly unlikely that abusers will suddenly turn themselves over to authorities simply because the pope asked them to. As a result, the church must put in place systems for dealing with abusers and bishops who do not do everything necessary to protect children.

Since 2002, the United States has had in place good systems for dealing with abusive priests. Victims are encouraged to come forward; accusations are reported to police; lay review boards examine evidence against the accused priest; if a priest is found guilty, he can never function as a priest again.

But systems are as good as the people implementing them, which is why the laity and the media should continue to be vigilant. Because bishops did such a bad job in the past, we must modify the words of President Reagan, “Don’t trust, verify.”

There are still dioceses that screw up, and their bishops must also be held accountable. It is true that some bishops have been removed for covering up abuse, but that has been on an ad hoc basis. So far, there is no system in place to report, investigate and hold accountable irresponsible bishops.

The pope’s address provides important preparation for the February meeting in Rome to discuss the sex abuse crisis. Those attending, including the presidents of episcopal conferences around the world, have been asked to meet with victims before coming to Rome. They have also been put on notice that this meeting is not to debate whether there is a crisis or how serious it is. Nor is it any longer open for discussion whether the hierarchy should try to hide the crisis from the faithful.

Sadly, too many bishops around the world think sex abuse is an American problem, or a First World problem. Those days are over, says the pope.

Although the February meeting will last only three days, it will be an important opportunity for the pope to communicate to the bishops of the world how important it is for them to deal swiftly and openly with the sex abuse crisis. The meeting will not solve the crisis, but it will begin to deal with it on a worldwide basis.

This article originally appeared at RNS.

No longer do the Catholic bishops and others have to worry that employers will be forced to cover contraceptives in their employee health insurance plans if it goes against their religious beliefs.

But before the winners do a victory dance, it would be good for them to remember that administrations come and go. The recent midterm election puts the gains made during this presidency in doubt. Now is the time for the proponents of religious liberty to offer to negotiate a grand compromise with those who promote women’s rights.

Compromise has become a dirty word in American politics as we have become more polarized. We should all listen to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who in 1988 wrote, “It is not refusal to compromise but compromise that in political things is the true morality.” After all, politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect.

But why should religious freedom advocates compromise when they are winning? The truth is that their victory is on shaking ground.

Take the Catholic bishops’ opposition to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Their position has almost zero support nationally. Only 4 percent of American adults think contraception is morally wrong. Even among Catholics who attend Mass weekly, only 13 percent believe contraception is sinful, according to the Pew Research Center. Public policy needs a stronger foundation than this to survive.

Some may object that the issue at hand is about religious freedom, not contraception. Won’t Americans support employers who have religious objections to contraceptives? The answer is no. Two-thirds of Americans, according to Pew, say that employers who have a religious objection to birth control should be required to provide it in health insurance plans for their employees as other employers are required to do.

Bottom line: The bishops do not have the voters behind them in their opposition to the contraceptive mandate.

There is a second reason that the opponents of the contraceptive mandate should negotiate a compromise. They may have won on the federal level, but they are losing at the state level.

Currently, about 30 states have a contraceptive mandate (with some exemptions), including the majority of the most populous states. No matter what Trump does, these states can still force employers, including religious institutions, to provide contraceptives in their employee health plans. Some of these states, such as California, even require coverage of abortion by Catholic colleges and universities.

Opponents of these mandates hope the U.S. Supreme Court will rule these state laws unconstitutional, but this is doubtful. In order to do so, the court would have to reverse the Employment Division v. Smith decision, written in 1990 by Justice Antonin Scalia. The Smith decision gave almost unlimited power to the states in promoting public policy over the objections of religious believers. It overturned decades of court precedents to the shock of supporters of religious freedom.

So what would a compromise look like? It would probably require the Catholic bishops to give up their fight against the contraceptive mandate except for a limited exemption for dioceses, parishes, religious orders and religious institutions that do not receive any government money or employ large numbers of non-Catholics.

In return, the bishops could demand a more sweeping exemption on both the federal and state levels for abortion coverage in health insurance. The bishops must be willing to sacrifice birth control exemptions in order to get an abortion exemption. The public will be much more sympathetic to an abortion exemption than one for contraceptives.

I am not so naive as to believe that such a compromise would be easy to negotiate, but it won’t get any easier for the proponents of religious liberty. Their current position of strength is on shaky ground. Now is the time to make a deal.

Their opponents would be equally rash to pass up the chance to negotiate a comprehensive compromise. After all, decisions by the Supreme Court are unpredictable. If the new court reversed the Smith case, they could lose badly. Besides, a limited contraceptive exemption for religious employers would affect relatively few women, who would still be able to buy contraceptives with their own money.

The supporters of reproductive rights may even be willing to accept a wider exemption for abortion. If they truly believe, as they often claim, that contraceptives will eliminate unwanted pregnancies, there will be less of a need for abortions.

In addition, as the number of abortions in the U.S. continues to decline, their coverage in health insurance plans becomes less important. And after all, it will still be legal and the employees of these religious institutions (mostly universities and hospitals) will be able to afford an abortion on their own.

As I say, I am not naive. Many on each side want the fight to continue. The left wants to continue saying that there is a war on women, while the right speaks of a war on religion. It is good politics and it is good for fundraising. But it does not help heal the bitter divisions in our country, which is in need of a few good compromises.

This article originally appeared at RNS.

Kavanaugh is not just any judge, of course. He’s been nominated to the Supreme Court. Were he a Catholic priest being considered for promotion to bishop, say, or a bishop looking to become cardinal, his promotion would be dead in the water until his name was cleared. He would be suspended from ministry and a professional investigation would be in order.

The procedures that the Catholic Church has had in place since 2002 for dealing with the sexual abuse of minors presume that the accused is an adult. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is accused of attempting to rape a high school student while he himself was in high school. He denies the charge.

For the moment, let’s presume that the church would apply to a case like Kavanaugh the same procedures that it would apply to a priest accused of sexually assaulting a minor while intoxicated.

With such a public accusation, his bishop would be a fool to simply say he believes his priest and close the case without an investigation, let alone promote him to higher office the following week.

A smart bishop would follow the procedures already in place for handling accusations of child abuse by priests and would first report the accusation to the police. While most jurisdictions will accept a report of an alleged crime that occurred outside of the statute of limitations — particularly when the allegation involves a minor — there is little they can do.

But the bishop would also send the accusation to the diocesan review board, along with any other information he had gathered through a preliminary investigation. The board would examine the accusation to determine whether it was credible or not. Did it have a semblance of truth?

My guess is that the accusation by Christine Blasey Ford would be found sufficiently credible to call for a full investigation and the temporary suspension of the priest. The investigation would attempt to get to the facts of the situation.

Such an investigation would not be easy since the alleged crime took place decades ago. It would require professional investigators with experience doing similar investigations. It should not be done by the chancery staff, who might have connections to the priest or at least be at risk of rooting for him over his accuser, although some dioceses might attempt that.

The New York Archdiocese wisely hired outside experts earlier this year to investigate then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick when he was accused of abusing a minor decades ago. The accusations were found by the archdiocesan review board to be credible and substantiated.

Such investigations are not easy even for professionals. Although television detectives can solve any crime in the hour allotted, real life is not so simple. Although the hope is that an investigation settles the facts of a case one way or another, sometimes the past is unclear. While criminal courts require that the accused be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a priest can be permanently removed from ministry with less certitude.

The results of the investigation go to the review board, which then makes a recommendation to the bishop. A bishop who ignores the recommendation of his review board would be foolish.

In the past, the bishops were no model for dealing with abuse, but today the church has procedures for dealing with accusations of abuse.

The U.S. Senate should not make the same mistakes the church did. The accusations against Kavanaugh should be investigated before his nomination moves forward.

This article originally appeared at RNS.

No matter what you think of people coming into the country illegally, one can hardly blame children brought by their parents. And once these children have spent their formative years here, the idea of sending them back to a country they do not remember, with a language they may not know, is spiteful.

READ: Sleeping with Dreams of Justice

It is especially appalling as we conclude the Christmas season to hear Christians denounce amnesty for Dreamers. Did they listen to the Gospels at all during Christmas? Do they not understand that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were refugees fleeing for their lives to take sanctuary in Egypt? Do they not realize that baby Jesus was a Dreamer in Egypt?

The Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel was simply repeating the experience of the Jewish people who also took refuge in Egypt. The Egyptians, like many Americans today, exploited these immigrants, treating them like slaves and cheating them of their wages.

The Bible is filled with admonitions about treating strangers and aliens justly.

• “You shall not oppress or afflict a resident alien, for you were once aliens residing in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:20).  
• “So you too should love the resident alien, for that is what you were in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:19).
• “You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34).

Where are the biblical fundamentalists who say that American law should be based on the Bible? Christians, especially those who believe that scripture should be the foundation of American law, should be leading the charge in support of Dreamers, refugees, and other immigrants.

Instead, what we see is too many Christians siding with a president who holds Dreamers hostage for ransom — $18 billion to pay for his wall along the border with Mexico. Legislation to protect Dreamers is urgently needed; a wall is not. Yet, Donald Trump insists that he will not sign a bill protecting Dreamers unless it includes his wall.

Every white person in this country has ancestors who came here as refugees or immigrants. Many were fleeing political or religious persecution, but millions more came because America provided economic opportunities for themselves and their families. Today’s refugees and immigrants are coming for exactly the same reasons. But now the drawbridge is being pulled up by those whose immigrant ancestors arrived earlier.

Shame!

READ: Praying for DREAMers

Some Christian churches have declared themselves sanctuary churches, following an ancient tradition when secular authorities could not invade a church to get an accused person. While churches cannot guarantee sanctuary today, these churches have symbolically placed themselves with the undocumented and not only accompany them when arrested but also financially support their legal defense.

It is time to stop playing politics and start acting like God-fearing people. Otherwise we will hear this on Judgment Day: “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was … a stranger and you gave me no welcome” (Matthew 25).

This article originally appeared at RNS.