You write: “‘Moral wisdom’ should not be driving our constitutional decisions in these areas, but is best left to the elected branches of government to decide. Perhaps you should stick to matters of the Church because you’re not helping in matters of the law.” Regarding the first sentence: Although I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, it is too easy for opponents of judicial restraint (especially those on the Right) to use such remarks to caricature originalism as a relativistic philosophy. I’m sure you’re familiar with this sort of attack on Rehnquist, Scalia, and Bork. It would be better, I think, to say, that moral wisdom in this instance consists of judges’ respecting the proper limits of their authority. As for the second sentence: I think the remedy here is a more intelligent and reflective political engagement by the bishops, not a withdrawal from the field. It would be wrong to rule out in principle the idea that the bishops ought to take a stand against injustices embodied in the law (even if they don’t do a great job of making the necessary judgments in a particular case).