Augustine of Hippo’s De opere monachorum directs itself against itinerant ascetics who, in emulation of the apostolic ideal, sought to support themselves by begging rather than manual labor. The treatise attests to a struggle not only over the legitimacy of different forms of ascetic practice, but over matters of exegesis. The latter is evident particularly in Augustine’s emphatic assertion that the wandering monks’ long hair, intended to identify its bearers as having embraced sexual continence, reflected misguided scriptural reading practices. This essay explores Augustine’s and his opponents’ approaches to biblical interpretation, its deployment to construct and deconstruct different visions of ascetic formation, and the conflicting theories of sexuality and eschatology reflected therein.

With the rise of originalism as an interpretive strategy, history has come to play an increasingly prominent role in the reasoning and methodology of the United States Supreme Court. That development has, by necessity, also shaped the approach to constitutional interpretation taken by other parties, including the large and growing number of groups who file amicus curiae briefs. When the amici in question are religious entities, this article suggests, this “historical turn” at times takes the shape of narrating aspects of a tradition’s sacred history for the benefit of both the Court and other, lay audiences. This article examines three recent amicus briefs by one of the most consistent and prolific religious amici, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Across these briefs, this author traces the construction and deployment of history—both Catholic and American—as a middle term for negotiating the relationship between the US Constitution and its interpretation, on the one hand, and the interests and priorities of the religious tradition, on the other.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract