http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17850
WASHINGTON D.C., November 26 (CNA) - New FBI statistics on hate crimes show a nine percent increase in crimes against religious groups in 2008 and an almost 25 percent increase in reported hate crimes against Catholics.
Last year there were 1,519 incidents classified as hate crimes based on a victim’s religion, USA Today reports. Anti-Jewish attacks made up one of every six incidents, but there were 75 such crimes against Catholics. This is an increase from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights told USA Today that he had never seen the country so culturally divided and polarized.
Speaking in more detail with CNA, he remarked that increased outspokenness among Catholic bishops and laity may have caused some retaliation.
“Lay Catholics are following the energy from the bishops who are becoming more vocal than they have been,” he commented.
In Donohue’s view, same-sex “marriage,” abortion, and protections conscientious objections are particular issues of public controversy.
“Proposition 8 in California last November led to violence against Catholics – many who were Latinos,” Donohue commented, referring to the successful California ballot measure which restored the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman.
“You have to accept that there are some nasty things done, but you can't let that scare you. They want to intimidate people of faith.”
Donohue said he thinks the culture is “at a turning point.”
“I see no way around it than to continue speaking out.”
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Catholic bishops reiterate that Senate health care bill is 'fundamentally flawed'
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17815
WASHINGTON D.C., November 24 (CNA) - In a teleconference Monday afternoon, representatives of the USCCB reiterated that the current Senate health care bill needs "substantial improvement" before it can be considered anything but morally unacceptable for Catholics.
Present at the teleconference were John Carr, Executive Director of the USCCB's Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development; Kevin Applby, Director of the Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs; Kathy Saile, Director of the Office of Domestic Policy; and Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities.
The spokesmen for the USCCB noted that the Senate's version of the health care bill falls short in three regards: abortion funding and conscience protection, immigrants rights in regards to health care, and accessibility and affordability.
The current version of the Senate bill does not allow undocumented immigrants to purchase federal health insurance with their own money and maintains the five year ban on legal immigrants having access to Medicaid.
For 24 million Americans who are well below the poverty line, the bill does not affect their access or ability to afford health insurance.
"To lose the precedent of no federal funding for abortion for the first time since Roe v Wade, to say that people, by law, have to pay for other peoples' abortions would be a fundamental failure," said John Carr. "Keeping in place the existing protections against federal funding for abortion seems frankly like a modest goal" as is "making sure that affordable and accessible health care is really affordable and accessible," he added.
The representatives made it clear that they were not changing any existing laws in their calls for change to the Senate bill. "For better or for worse, the status quo in this country is that abortion is legal and available and no one is required to pay for somebody else's abortion with their tax payer dollars or their premiums required by law," Carr said.
"Part of what's going on here," Carr remarked, "is the people on the other side have felt the need to dramatically exaggerate what the Stupak amendment does. What we're trying to do here is simply apply the Hyde amendment, which has been the law of the land for decades."
Not all of the Senators who voted to open discussion on the bill agree with what it currently says. "I, along with others, expect to have legitimate opportunities to influence the healthcare reform legislation that is voted on by the Senate later this year or early next year,'' said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he voted to move the bill to discussion because he wants the chance to amend it.
Political analysts are predicting the need for some delicate maneuvering on Reid's part to get this bill through the Senate.
In the mean time, John Carr noted, "when it comes to the abortion funding question, we clearly have precedent with us and we clearly have public opinion with us, you've all seen the CNN poll."
"Our hope is that having come this far, the Senate, and ultimately the Congress, and ultimately the country, will achieve the goal the bishops have set: which is genuine health care reform which will respect and protect the life, dignity, health, and consciences of all of us," Carr concluded.
WASHINGTON D.C., November 24 (CNA) - In a teleconference Monday afternoon, representatives of the USCCB reiterated that the current Senate health care bill needs "substantial improvement" before it can be considered anything but morally unacceptable for Catholics.
Present at the teleconference were John Carr, Executive Director of the USCCB's Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development; Kevin Applby, Director of the Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs; Kathy Saile, Director of the Office of Domestic Policy; and Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities.
The spokesmen for the USCCB noted that the Senate's version of the health care bill falls short in three regards: abortion funding and conscience protection, immigrants rights in regards to health care, and accessibility and affordability.
The current version of the Senate bill does not allow undocumented immigrants to purchase federal health insurance with their own money and maintains the five year ban on legal immigrants having access to Medicaid.
For 24 million Americans who are well below the poverty line, the bill does not affect their access or ability to afford health insurance.
"To lose the precedent of no federal funding for abortion for the first time since Roe v Wade, to say that people, by law, have to pay for other peoples' abortions would be a fundamental failure," said John Carr. "Keeping in place the existing protections against federal funding for abortion seems frankly like a modest goal" as is "making sure that affordable and accessible health care is really affordable and accessible," he added.
The representatives made it clear that they were not changing any existing laws in their calls for change to the Senate bill. "For better or for worse, the status quo in this country is that abortion is legal and available and no one is required to pay for somebody else's abortion with their tax payer dollars or their premiums required by law," Carr said.
"Part of what's going on here," Carr remarked, "is the people on the other side have felt the need to dramatically exaggerate what the Stupak amendment does. What we're trying to do here is simply apply the Hyde amendment, which has been the law of the land for decades."
Not all of the Senators who voted to open discussion on the bill agree with what it currently says. "I, along with others, expect to have legitimate opportunities to influence the healthcare reform legislation that is voted on by the Senate later this year or early next year,'' said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he voted to move the bill to discussion because he wants the chance to amend it.
Political analysts are predicting the need for some delicate maneuvering on Reid's part to get this bill through the Senate.
In the mean time, John Carr noted, "when it comes to the abortion funding question, we clearly have precedent with us and we clearly have public opinion with us, you've all seen the CNN poll."
"Our hope is that having come this far, the Senate, and ultimately the Congress, and ultimately the country, will achieve the goal the bishops have set: which is genuine health care reform which will respect and protect the life, dignity, health, and consciences of all of us," Carr concluded.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Audience with the Archbishop of Canterbury
VATICAN CITY, 21 NOV 2009 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office today released the following communique:
"This morning His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI received in private audience His Grace Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.
"In the course of the cordial discussions attention turned to the challenges facing all Christian communities at the beginning of this millennium, and to the need to promote forms of collaboration and shared witness in facing these challenges.
"The discussions also focused on recent events affecting relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, reiterating the shared will to continue and to consolidate the ecumenical relationship between Catholics and Anglicans, and recalling how, over coming days, the commission entrusted with preparing the third phase of international theological dialogue between the parties (ARCIC) is due to meet".
OP/AUDIENCE/WILLIAMS VIS 091123 (140)
"This morning His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI received in private audience His Grace Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.
"In the course of the cordial discussions attention turned to the challenges facing all Christian communities at the beginning of this millennium, and to the need to promote forms of collaboration and shared witness in facing these challenges.
"The discussions also focused on recent events affecting relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, reiterating the shared will to continue and to consolidate the ecumenical relationship between Catholics and Anglicans, and recalling how, over coming days, the commission entrusted with preparing the third phase of international theological dialogue between the parties (ARCIC) is due to meet".
OP/AUDIENCE/WILLIAMS VIS 091123 (140)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Planet Unites in Opposing Death Penalty
Cities Join With Sant'Egidio Community Initiative
ROME, NOV. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- On Nov. 30, more than 1,000 cities around the globe will floodlight a monument symbolizing opposition to the death penalty, joining with the Community of Sant'Egidio in their "No Justice Without Life" initiative.
The community recognizes a change in world opinion on the death penalty, highlighted by two U.N. resolutions calling for a universal moratorium on the practice.
A statement from the group called capital punishment a "residue from the past," and said that like slavery and torture, it should eventually be rejected.
Yet, "the path to the abolition of capital punishment continues to be long and difficult and it needs decisive and long-term action in view of the implementation of the resolution and of the definitive abolition of capital punishment," the communiqué affirmed.
The World Day of Cities for Life is observed every Nov. 30 in memory of the first abolition of the death penalty by a state (the Grand Duchy of Tuscany), which took place in 1786.
The 2008 celebration saw the participation of 1,000 cities, more than 50 of which were capitals. It thus represented the most widespread international mobilization ever in the movement to halt all capital executions in the world.
Cities are invited to make a visible gesture to its citizens and to the world. The gesture, preferably the illumination of an important monument of the city, is accompanied with adherence to the universal moratorium and a concrete commitment to build awareness about the issue in civil society. The city of Rome, for example, illuminates the Colosseum, Brussels the Atomium, Barcelona the Cathedral Square.
ROME, NOV. 18, 2009 (Zenit.org).- On Nov. 30, more than 1,000 cities around the globe will floodlight a monument symbolizing opposition to the death penalty, joining with the Community of Sant'Egidio in their "No Justice Without Life" initiative.
The community recognizes a change in world opinion on the death penalty, highlighted by two U.N. resolutions calling for a universal moratorium on the practice.
A statement from the group called capital punishment a "residue from the past," and said that like slavery and torture, it should eventually be rejected.
Yet, "the path to the abolition of capital punishment continues to be long and difficult and it needs decisive and long-term action in view of the implementation of the resolution and of the definitive abolition of capital punishment," the communiqué affirmed.
The World Day of Cities for Life is observed every Nov. 30 in memory of the first abolition of the death penalty by a state (the Grand Duchy of Tuscany), which took place in 1786.
The 2008 celebration saw the participation of 1,000 cities, more than 50 of which were capitals. It thus represented the most widespread international mobilization ever in the movement to halt all capital executions in the world.
Cities are invited to make a visible gesture to its citizens and to the world. The gesture, preferably the illumination of an important monument of the city, is accompanied with adherence to the universal moratorium and a concrete commitment to build awareness about the issue in civil society. The city of Rome, for example, illuminates the Colosseum, Brussels the Atomium, Barcelona the Cathedral Square.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Celibacy as a Rule Still in Force for Anglicans
Ordination of Married Men to Come Case by Case
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 9, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI's apostolic constitution establishing personal ordinariates for Anglicans in communion with Rome does not alter the discipline of clerical celibacy nor the esteem the Church has for this practice, the Vatican clarified.
This clarification was given today in a statement from the Vatican announcing "Anglicanorum Coetibus," Benedict XVI's apostolic constitution for Anglicans who want to enter the Catholic Church. Complementary norms and an official commentary were also published.
The constitution states: "Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.
"In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI 'Sacerdotalis coelibatus,' n. 4215 and in the Statement 'In June' are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1."
This practice is nothing new and has already been in use for Anglican priests who have come into communion with Rome on an individual basis.
The question nevertheless arose after last month's announcement of the constitution whether married seminarians would be able to become priests.
The document clarifies: "The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 9, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI's apostolic constitution establishing personal ordinariates for Anglicans in communion with Rome does not alter the discipline of clerical celibacy nor the esteem the Church has for this practice, the Vatican clarified.
This clarification was given today in a statement from the Vatican announcing "Anglicanorum Coetibus," Benedict XVI's apostolic constitution for Anglicans who want to enter the Catholic Church. Complementary norms and an official commentary were also published.
The constitution states: "Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.
"In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI 'Sacerdotalis coelibatus,' n. 4215 and in the Statement 'In June' are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1."
This practice is nothing new and has already been in use for Anglican priests who have come into communion with Rome on an individual basis.
The question nevertheless arose after last month's announcement of the constitution whether married seminarians would be able to become priests.
The document clarifies: "The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Italian mayors respond to Strasbourg ruling by hanging more crucifixes in schools
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17681
ROME, ITALY, November 12 (CNA) - A number of Italian officials have responded to the ruling by the European Human Rights Court that ordered schools in Italy to remove crucifixes from the classrooms by taking unprecedented measures to preserve the Christian symbol.
According to the Italian daily “Avvenire,” the mayor of Sezzadio, Pier Luigi Arnera, has leveled a fine of 500 euros against anyone who removes a crucifix from a public place.
Arnera explained that the displaying of the crucifix in “places other than churches does not affect the dignity of anyone, because it is one of our cultural references.”
Likewise in the cities of Sassuolo and Trapani, officials have acquired dozens more crucifixes to display them in public schools.
In Montegrotto Terme, digital billboards that normally are used to inform the public are now displaying the crucifix with the phrase, “We will not take it down.” The mayor of Assisi has ordered that Nativity scenes be displayed in addition to the crucifix in public offices.
In Varesotto a local contractor placed a 16-foot cross on his farm in order to express his indignation over the EU court ruling.
ROME, ITALY, November 12 (CNA) - A number of Italian officials have responded to the ruling by the European Human Rights Court that ordered schools in Italy to remove crucifixes from the classrooms by taking unprecedented measures to preserve the Christian symbol.
According to the Italian daily “Avvenire,” the mayor of Sezzadio, Pier Luigi Arnera, has leveled a fine of 500 euros against anyone who removes a crucifix from a public place.
Arnera explained that the displaying of the crucifix in “places other than churches does not affect the dignity of anyone, because it is one of our cultural references.”
Likewise in the cities of Sassuolo and Trapani, officials have acquired dozens more crucifixes to display them in public schools.
In Montegrotto Terme, digital billboards that normally are used to inform the public are now displaying the crucifix with the phrase, “We will not take it down.” The mayor of Assisi has ordered that Nativity scenes be displayed in addition to the crucifix in public offices.
In Varesotto a local contractor placed a 16-foot cross on his farm in order to express his indignation over the EU court ruling.
Benedict XVI surfs the web and uses email
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17683
VATICAN CITY, November 12 (CNA) - The president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, shared this week that the Holy Father has an appreciation for new developments in technology and is comfortable surfing the internet and using email.
During an interview with the program “Studio Aperto” on the Italia 1 TV network, Archbishop Celli added, while the Pope doesn't have a personal email address, he “sends his own personal emails. He does! He has great appreciation for new technology.”
The archbishop explained that while the Pope “cannot respond to the millions of messages that arrive in his inbox,” he is committed to “offering his prayers for all who write to him.”
“The internet is an excellent means of communication,” he continued. “We are seeking to be present where the people are, especially the youth.”
VATICAN CITY, November 12 (CNA) - The president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, shared this week that the Holy Father has an appreciation for new developments in technology and is comfortable surfing the internet and using email.
During an interview with the program “Studio Aperto” on the Italia 1 TV network, Archbishop Celli added, while the Pope doesn't have a personal email address, he “sends his own personal emails. He does! He has great appreciation for new technology.”
The archbishop explained that while the Pope “cannot respond to the millions of messages that arrive in his inbox,” he is committed to “offering his prayers for all who write to him.”
“The internet is an excellent means of communication,” he continued. “We are seeking to be present where the people are, especially the youth.”
Adult Stem Cells Saved My Life campaign set to launch
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17689
KANSAS CITY, KAN., November 12 (CNA) - The Family Research Council, (FRC) has announced the beginning of its campaign to spread awareness about how successful adult stem cells are in treating a variety of diseases. The most recent count places the number of conditions successfully treated at close to 80.
On Saturday, November 14, 2009, the FRC will kick off the “Adult Stem Cells Saved My Life Education & Awareness Campaign” at the Town Hall in Shawnee, Kansas. At the premier, they will publicly launch www.stemcellresearchfacts.com and present the stories of people who have been successfully treated with adult stem cells via short videos.
Laura Dominguez knows firsthand about the impact a stem cell treatment can make.
In the summer of 2001, when Dominguez was just 16 years-old, she was involved in a car accident that broke her neck, paralyzing her from the neck down.
After a Portuguese surgeon took stem cells from her nose, cultured them, and used them to replace the scar tissue in her neck, she is now able to feel her body below her chest. She can grasp and move the mouse of a computer and is able to walk with leg braces. Though her range of motion is limited compared to her abilities before the accident, due to the treatment which used her own stem cells, she is no longer a paraplegic.
David Prentice, Ph.D., formerly a professor at Indiana State University who now works full time with FRC, told CNA that this campaign is about awareness. “This (adult stem cell research) is out there. There’s more coming.” Prentice noted that the majority of people don’t even know about adult stem cell treatments and how effective they are.
According to Prentice, the exact number of conditions that can be successfully treated by adult stem cells “is growing weekly. It’s over 70, and soon it will be 80.”
Currently the most common and effective treatments using stem cells are various forms of cancers and anemias, he said, though adult stem cells have also repaired heart attack damage, treated leukemias, lymphomas, spinal cord injuries and helped patients with multiple sclerosis and juvenile diabetes.
When asked about the embryonic stem cell research debate, Prentice noted, “No human beings have even been injected yet” in embryonic stem cell research. Published science, however, has verified the successful treatments of thousands of patients using adult stem cells.
“Lets focus on helping the patients, and helping them now,” Prentice said. “We’re not even talking about embryonic stem cell research. It’s not helping anybody. It’s not even helping the lab rats.”
KANSAS CITY, KAN., November 12 (CNA) - The Family Research Council, (FRC) has announced the beginning of its campaign to spread awareness about how successful adult stem cells are in treating a variety of diseases. The most recent count places the number of conditions successfully treated at close to 80.
On Saturday, November 14, 2009, the FRC will kick off the “Adult Stem Cells Saved My Life Education & Awareness Campaign” at the Town Hall in Shawnee, Kansas. At the premier, they will publicly launch www.stemcellresearchfacts.com and present the stories of people who have been successfully treated with adult stem cells via short videos.
Laura Dominguez knows firsthand about the impact a stem cell treatment can make.
In the summer of 2001, when Dominguez was just 16 years-old, she was involved in a car accident that broke her neck, paralyzing her from the neck down.
After a Portuguese surgeon took stem cells from her nose, cultured them, and used them to replace the scar tissue in her neck, she is now able to feel her body below her chest. She can grasp and move the mouse of a computer and is able to walk with leg braces. Though her range of motion is limited compared to her abilities before the accident, due to the treatment which used her own stem cells, she is no longer a paraplegic.
David Prentice, Ph.D., formerly a professor at Indiana State University who now works full time with FRC, told CNA that this campaign is about awareness. “This (adult stem cell research) is out there. There’s more coming.” Prentice noted that the majority of people don’t even know about adult stem cell treatments and how effective they are.
According to Prentice, the exact number of conditions that can be successfully treated by adult stem cells “is growing weekly. It’s over 70, and soon it will be 80.”
Currently the most common and effective treatments using stem cells are various forms of cancers and anemias, he said, though adult stem cells have also repaired heart attack damage, treated leukemias, lymphomas, spinal cord injuries and helped patients with multiple sclerosis and juvenile diabetes.
When asked about the embryonic stem cell research debate, Prentice noted, “No human beings have even been injected yet” in embryonic stem cell research. Published science, however, has verified the successful treatments of thousands of patients using adult stem cells.
“Lets focus on helping the patients, and helping them now,” Prentice said. “We’re not even talking about embryonic stem cell research. It’s not helping anybody. It’s not even helping the lab rats.”
Local regulations targeting pro-life pregnancy centers suggest new strategy
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17691
BALTIMORE, MD., November 13 (CNA) - Critics have accused proposed municipal and county legislation in Maryland of singling out pro-life pregnancy resource centers with regulations critics say are intended to harass and discredit the charities. The laws could be part of a new strategy that uses local lawmakers, rather than state or national legislators.
The concerns center upon two proposed laws for the city of Baltimore and Montgomery County.
The Montgomery County proposal would require pregnancy resource centers to provide to clients a written disclaimer in English and Spanish saying that the information that the pregnancy center provides is “not intended to be medical advice or to establish a doctor-patient relationship.” The disclaimer would also say the client should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on “a course of action regarding the client’s pregnancy.”
Violation of the law would be punished as a Class A civil violation, with fines of up to $500 for a first-time violation and up to $750 per day for repeat violations. The law will be voted upon in December.
“The bill singles out pregnancy resource centers only because of their pro-life mission,” the Maryland Catholic Conference said in a press release. “If approved, the Montgomery County regulation would impose government-compelled speech on a non-profit organization that does not receive government funding simply because the organization declines to provide or refer for abortion.”
One of the Montgomery County Council members sponsoring the bill, Duchy Trachtenberg, is a past president of Maryland National Organization for Women.
She also served as an advisor on “women’s issues” to Howard Dean during his 2004 effort to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, was chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009.
Similar legislation before the Baltimore City Council requires pregnancy centers to provide a list of services they do not provide, like abortion and contraception, or face a daily fine.
The Conference reports that the regulation does not apply to “family planning” clinics, which are funded by the county, or to abortion clinics.
The city bill has passed committee and will be voted upon by the full city council on Nov. 16.
CNA spoke about the proposals in a Thursday interview with Mary Sullivan, Communications Director of the Maryland Catholic Conference.
She characterized the legislation as a bill promoted by NARAL and Planned Parenthood to “single out pro-life charities for harassment in an attempt to discredit them.”
“Just imagine being a vulnerable woman in need. You don’t have a lot of material resources and you may have been abandoned by your support system. You’re going to one of these charitable organizations and you’re being told, essentially, ‘we’re not the people you should come to, we’re unreliable.’”
Fines punishing violation of the laws would also burden the privately-funded charities, she said.
Sullivan told CNA that in 2008 a bill was filed in the Maryland Legislature that would have required pregnancy centers that don’t provide or refer for abortions or contraceptives to tell clients that the center is not required to provide them with “factually accurate” information.
The proposal never made it out of committee.
The law before the Baltimore City Council was filed in Oct. 2009, Sullivan reported, charging that supporters are “shopping the bill around” to local jurisdictions.
She said NARAL’s claims that pregnancy centers mislead women or provide them with inaccurate information are based on their own investigation in which they sent interns into pregnancy centers to find out information.
“Unfortunately some local lawmakers are considering that investigation to be a reliable source of information,” added Sullivan. “In fact it’s not. The only reliable sources are the actual women served by these centers. All of these women say they received excellent, competent care.”
In hearings for the proposals NARAL and Planned Parenthood were unable to provide “a single real woman” who claimed to have been misled, she reported.
Noting that Montgomery County itself is adjacent to Washington, D.C., CNA asked Sullivan about the possible national implications of these efforts. Sullivan replied that she understands similar legislation has been introduced in other states.
While not identical, the bills all intend to discredit the centers, she charged.
To Sullivan’s knowledge, the other attempts were made at the state level. The Maryland proposals mark the first attempts at local legislation of pregnancy resource centers.
She noted that Planned Parenthood and NARAL have promoted the legislation on their websites and have encouraged their supporters to back the measures.
“If they’re successful here they will try in other places, certainly,” Sullivan told CNA.
BALTIMORE, MD., November 13 (CNA) - Critics have accused proposed municipal and county legislation in Maryland of singling out pro-life pregnancy resource centers with regulations critics say are intended to harass and discredit the charities. The laws could be part of a new strategy that uses local lawmakers, rather than state or national legislators.
The concerns center upon two proposed laws for the city of Baltimore and Montgomery County.
The Montgomery County proposal would require pregnancy resource centers to provide to clients a written disclaimer in English and Spanish saying that the information that the pregnancy center provides is “not intended to be medical advice or to establish a doctor-patient relationship.” The disclaimer would also say the client should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on “a course of action regarding the client’s pregnancy.”
Violation of the law would be punished as a Class A civil violation, with fines of up to $500 for a first-time violation and up to $750 per day for repeat violations. The law will be voted upon in December.
“The bill singles out pregnancy resource centers only because of their pro-life mission,” the Maryland Catholic Conference said in a press release. “If approved, the Montgomery County regulation would impose government-compelled speech on a non-profit organization that does not receive government funding simply because the organization declines to provide or refer for abortion.”
One of the Montgomery County Council members sponsoring the bill, Duchy Trachtenberg, is a past president of Maryland National Organization for Women.
She also served as an advisor on “women’s issues” to Howard Dean during his 2004 effort to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, was chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009.
Similar legislation before the Baltimore City Council requires pregnancy centers to provide a list of services they do not provide, like abortion and contraception, or face a daily fine.
The Conference reports that the regulation does not apply to “family planning” clinics, which are funded by the county, or to abortion clinics.
The city bill has passed committee and will be voted upon by the full city council on Nov. 16.
CNA spoke about the proposals in a Thursday interview with Mary Sullivan, Communications Director of the Maryland Catholic Conference.
She characterized the legislation as a bill promoted by NARAL and Planned Parenthood to “single out pro-life charities for harassment in an attempt to discredit them.”
“Just imagine being a vulnerable woman in need. You don’t have a lot of material resources and you may have been abandoned by your support system. You’re going to one of these charitable organizations and you’re being told, essentially, ‘we’re not the people you should come to, we’re unreliable.’”
Fines punishing violation of the laws would also burden the privately-funded charities, she said.
Sullivan told CNA that in 2008 a bill was filed in the Maryland Legislature that would have required pregnancy centers that don’t provide or refer for abortions or contraceptives to tell clients that the center is not required to provide them with “factually accurate” information.
The proposal never made it out of committee.
The law before the Baltimore City Council was filed in Oct. 2009, Sullivan reported, charging that supporters are “shopping the bill around” to local jurisdictions.
She said NARAL’s claims that pregnancy centers mislead women or provide them with inaccurate information are based on their own investigation in which they sent interns into pregnancy centers to find out information.
“Unfortunately some local lawmakers are considering that investigation to be a reliable source of information,” added Sullivan. “In fact it’s not. The only reliable sources are the actual women served by these centers. All of these women say they received excellent, competent care.”
In hearings for the proposals NARAL and Planned Parenthood were unable to provide “a single real woman” who claimed to have been misled, she reported.
Noting that Montgomery County itself is adjacent to Washington, D.C., CNA asked Sullivan about the possible national implications of these efforts. Sullivan replied that she understands similar legislation has been introduced in other states.
While not identical, the bills all intend to discredit the centers, she charged.
To Sullivan’s knowledge, the other attempts were made at the state level. The Maryland proposals mark the first attempts at local legislation of pregnancy resource centers.
She noted that Planned Parenthood and NARAL have promoted the legislation on their websites and have encouraged their supporters to back the measures.
“If they’re successful here they will try in other places, certainly,” Sullivan told CNA.
Priest donates own ‘holy kidney’ to ailing parishioner
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17695
DALLAS, TEXAS, November 13 (CNA) - A Texas woman in need of a kidney has received one from her parish priest. She has called the donation a “holy kidney,” while he says the gift of his kidney is an attempt to follow Christ’s life-giving example.
Carrie Gehling, who has lost both legs to diabetes and has suffered four heart attacks, needed a kidney transplant after years of dialysis. Her medical history made her a high-risk candidate and she needed to find a live donor herself, the Dallas Morning News reports.
The 45-year-old Gehling turned to her pastor at St. Rita Catholic Church, Msgr. Mark Seitz.
Msgr. Seitz, thinking about where his parishioner could find a donor, said he thought to himself 'Why not me?'
Testing proved he was an acceptable match. Gehling, hearing he would be her donor, said she would call the gift her “holy kidney.”
A spokesman for the Dallas parish said the Tuesday morning transplant went well and both patients were recovering.
Msgr. Seitz, who is 55, told the Dallas Morning News he considers the organ donation a manifestation of his priestly duties.
“We follow the model of one who literally gave his life for us. If he can lay down his life, I can give away a kidney."
An essay written by Msgr. Seitz said that he has known Gehling for more than six years.
“I have greatly admired her courage in dealing with her diabetes and all the many effects of this terrible disease. Through the many daily trials and sufferings and limitations, the hours of dialysis; through all the difficulties she has continued to fight. Not only this, but she has continued to love God, to trust in His goodness and to reach out to others in love. Who could fail to be inspired by this witness of Faith?”
The priest recounted how he, Gehling and her mother had traveled to a shrine named San Juan de los Lagos on the Texas/Mexico border.
“Many answers to prayers have been associated with this holy place,” Msgr. Seitz explained. “We made a day trip in the airplane owned by one of our parishioners and we celebrated Mass there. Little did I know that less than a year following that pilgrimage that I would end up being part of the answer to her prayer.”
But it wasn't always smooth sailing for Gehling, who told the Dallas Morning News that she lost her faith for a time after her father died of a heart attack when she was 20.
"Then one day, I woke up and thought, 'What in the world is wrong with you?'" she said. "If my father had lived after that heart attack, he would have been a vegetable. What the Lord did was for the best.
"There's only one way to put it: Thy will be done."
Before the operation, she said people who did not think she would make it don’t know her.
“There’s more in life that I want to accomplish,” she said.
Parishioners at St. Rita’s held a special rosary service the night before the transplant.
On Thursday afternoon Msgr. Seitz posted an entry at the patient journal site CaringBridge.org. He said he is disconnected from all his tubes and is feeling “a bit more human each day.”
Prayers had “buoyed him up” and had given him peace during the operation.
“It gives me great joy to know that Carrie is doing great. She says that she is feeling better that she has in 15 years.
“I told her I expected that. She didn't receive any second rate kidney!”
Gehling made an entry eight minutes later, saying “There are no words to say thank you. How do you say thank you to a man that has given one a new life?”
DALLAS, TEXAS, November 13 (CNA) - A Texas woman in need of a kidney has received one from her parish priest. She has called the donation a “holy kidney,” while he says the gift of his kidney is an attempt to follow Christ’s life-giving example.
Carrie Gehling, who has lost both legs to diabetes and has suffered four heart attacks, needed a kidney transplant after years of dialysis. Her medical history made her a high-risk candidate and she needed to find a live donor herself, the Dallas Morning News reports.
The 45-year-old Gehling turned to her pastor at St. Rita Catholic Church, Msgr. Mark Seitz.
Msgr. Seitz, thinking about where his parishioner could find a donor, said he thought to himself 'Why not me?'
Testing proved he was an acceptable match. Gehling, hearing he would be her donor, said she would call the gift her “holy kidney.”
A spokesman for the Dallas parish said the Tuesday morning transplant went well and both patients were recovering.
Msgr. Seitz, who is 55, told the Dallas Morning News he considers the organ donation a manifestation of his priestly duties.
“We follow the model of one who literally gave his life for us. If he can lay down his life, I can give away a kidney."
An essay written by Msgr. Seitz said that he has known Gehling for more than six years.
“I have greatly admired her courage in dealing with her diabetes and all the many effects of this terrible disease. Through the many daily trials and sufferings and limitations, the hours of dialysis; through all the difficulties she has continued to fight. Not only this, but she has continued to love God, to trust in His goodness and to reach out to others in love. Who could fail to be inspired by this witness of Faith?”
The priest recounted how he, Gehling and her mother had traveled to a shrine named San Juan de los Lagos on the Texas/Mexico border.
“Many answers to prayers have been associated with this holy place,” Msgr. Seitz explained. “We made a day trip in the airplane owned by one of our parishioners and we celebrated Mass there. Little did I know that less than a year following that pilgrimage that I would end up being part of the answer to her prayer.”
But it wasn't always smooth sailing for Gehling, who told the Dallas Morning News that she lost her faith for a time after her father died of a heart attack when she was 20.
"Then one day, I woke up and thought, 'What in the world is wrong with you?'" she said. "If my father had lived after that heart attack, he would have been a vegetable. What the Lord did was for the best.
"There's only one way to put it: Thy will be done."
Before the operation, she said people who did not think she would make it don’t know her.
“There’s more in life that I want to accomplish,” she said.
Parishioners at St. Rita’s held a special rosary service the night before the transplant.
On Thursday afternoon Msgr. Seitz posted an entry at the patient journal site CaringBridge.org. He said he is disconnected from all his tubes and is feeling “a bit more human each day.”
Prayers had “buoyed him up” and had given him peace during the operation.
“It gives me great joy to know that Carrie is doing great. She says that she is feeling better that she has in 15 years.
“I told her I expected that. She didn't receive any second rate kidney!”
Gehling made an entry eight minutes later, saying “There are no words to say thank you. How do you say thank you to a man that has given one a new life?”
Religious exemptions in D.C. same-sex ‘marriage’ bill are too narrow, archdiocese says
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17676
WASHINGTON D.C., November 12 (CNA) - The Archdiocese of Washington has criticized a D.C. City Council committee for narrowing the religious freedom exemptions in a bill that would recognize same-sex “marriage.” The archdiocese says the bill leaves religious organizations and individuals at risk of lawsuits for adhering to their beliefs and could endanger Catholic social services.
While the proposed bill presently says religious organizations do not have to participate in the “solemnization or celebration” of a same-sex marriage ceremony, a previous version of the bill had exempted such organizations from having to promote “marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.”
The revised vision, the archdiocese said in a Tuesday statement, “significantly narrows” the exemption to the promotion of marriage “through religious programs, counseling, courses or retreats.”
The archdiocese said that those who refuse to promote and support same-sex “marriages” in a “host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs” would risk facing legal action. Such settings could include employee benefits, adoption services and the use of church halls for non-wedding events for same-sex couples.
“Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy,” the archdiocese warned.
According to the Washington Post, churches would have to abide by aspects of the city’s Human Rights Act, which includes a ban on discriminating against homosexual employees who choose to “marry.”
“The bill provides no exemption for individuals with sincerely-held religious beliefs, as required under federal law,” the archdiocese’s statement noted. “In fact, one council member opposed an amendment that would have respected an individual’s federally-protected, deeply-held religious beliefs by saying that would encourage a ‘discriminatory impulse.’”
The archdiocese charged that the City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, which is handling the bill, has rejected the concerns voiced in testimony from the archdiocese, the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, and nationally recognized legal scholars.
These experts cited Supreme Court case law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The archdiocese has also argued that individuals should be able to exempt themselves from participation in same-sex “weddings” and other activities.
At a city council hearing on Tuesday, Council member Mary M. Cheh questioned why wedding photographers should be allowed to choose the clients they serve.
“That would be discrimination, right?” she asked.
Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the archdiocese, in a letter to Council member Phil Mendelson, noted the archdiocese’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage in the District but also defended broad religious exemptions if such a law should be passed.
She argued that the bill is not accurately framed as “a clear cut matter of equality and civil rights” but must be seen in the context of balancing competing interests: “The interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely."
Noting that the RFRA requires the District government to burden an individual’s religious practice in the “least restrictive means possible,” Belford said: “The outright prohibition of the observance of a sincerely held religious belief about marriage cannot possibly be said to be the least restrictive means in this case.”
The Washington Post said it was doubtful the archdiocese would be successful.
Edward Orzechowski, president/CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, said his organization was concerned the narrowing of the exemption would cause the government to discontinue its partnership with Catholic Charities and would “open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor.”
The bill is now headed to the full City Council.
The archdiocese said Catholic teachings recognize that all individuals have equal dignity and deserve equal respect, but by its very nature marriage “must be between a man and a woman.”
“One essential purpose of marriage is an openness to creating and nurturing the next generation, which is the reason that governments and cultures throughout all time have given these relationships special recognition and support,” the archdiocese said.
There are over 580,000 Catholics in the District of Columbia and five Maryland counties. In the District there are 40 parishes, 21 Catholic schools and 25 corporations in service to the community.
The archdiocese has set up a website on marriage at http://www.MarriageMattersDC.org.
WASHINGTON D.C., November 12 (CNA) - The Archdiocese of Washington has criticized a D.C. City Council committee for narrowing the religious freedom exemptions in a bill that would recognize same-sex “marriage.” The archdiocese says the bill leaves religious organizations and individuals at risk of lawsuits for adhering to their beliefs and could endanger Catholic social services.
While the proposed bill presently says religious organizations do not have to participate in the “solemnization or celebration” of a same-sex marriage ceremony, a previous version of the bill had exempted such organizations from having to promote “marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.”
The revised vision, the archdiocese said in a Tuesday statement, “significantly narrows” the exemption to the promotion of marriage “through religious programs, counseling, courses or retreats.”
The archdiocese said that those who refuse to promote and support same-sex “marriages” in a “host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs” would risk facing legal action. Such settings could include employee benefits, adoption services and the use of church halls for non-wedding events for same-sex couples.
“Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy,” the archdiocese warned.
According to the Washington Post, churches would have to abide by aspects of the city’s Human Rights Act, which includes a ban on discriminating against homosexual employees who choose to “marry.”
“The bill provides no exemption for individuals with sincerely-held religious beliefs, as required under federal law,” the archdiocese’s statement noted. “In fact, one council member opposed an amendment that would have respected an individual’s federally-protected, deeply-held religious beliefs by saying that would encourage a ‘discriminatory impulse.’”
The archdiocese charged that the City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, which is handling the bill, has rejected the concerns voiced in testimony from the archdiocese, the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, and nationally recognized legal scholars.
These experts cited Supreme Court case law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The archdiocese has also argued that individuals should be able to exempt themselves from participation in same-sex “weddings” and other activities.
At a city council hearing on Tuesday, Council member Mary M. Cheh questioned why wedding photographers should be allowed to choose the clients they serve.
“That would be discrimination, right?” she asked.
Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the archdiocese, in a letter to Council member Phil Mendelson, noted the archdiocese’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage in the District but also defended broad religious exemptions if such a law should be passed.
She argued that the bill is not accurately framed as “a clear cut matter of equality and civil rights” but must be seen in the context of balancing competing interests: “The interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely."
Noting that the RFRA requires the District government to burden an individual’s religious practice in the “least restrictive means possible,” Belford said: “The outright prohibition of the observance of a sincerely held religious belief about marriage cannot possibly be said to be the least restrictive means in this case.”
The Washington Post said it was doubtful the archdiocese would be successful.
Edward Orzechowski, president/CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, said his organization was concerned the narrowing of the exemption would cause the government to discontinue its partnership with Catholic Charities and would “open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor.”
The bill is now headed to the full City Council.
The archdiocese said Catholic teachings recognize that all individuals have equal dignity and deserve equal respect, but by its very nature marriage “must be between a man and a woman.”
“One essential purpose of marriage is an openness to creating and nurturing the next generation, which is the reason that governments and cultures throughout all time have given these relationships special recognition and support,” the archdiocese said.
There are over 580,000 Catholics in the District of Columbia and five Maryland counties. In the District there are 40 parishes, 21 Catholic schools and 25 corporations in service to the community.
The archdiocese has set up a website on marriage at http://www.MarriageMattersDC.org.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Bishop Tobin says Rep. Kennedy is in ‘flawed communion’ with the Church
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17660
PROVIDENCE, R.I., November 11 (CNA) - Bishop of Providence Thomas J. Tobin has responded to Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s contention that his dissent from Catholic teaching on abortion does not make him “less of a Catholic.” Saying that such dissent renders the lawmaker's communion “flawed,” he urged Kennedy to become a “profile in courage” and to defend the unborn.
Rep. Kennedy (D-R.I.), the son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, had accused the Catholic Church of fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” because of the Catholic bishops’ opposition to proposed health care reform that does not explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.
Bishop Tobin responded critically to the congressman and asked for an apology.
A meeting had been scheduled between the prelate and the politician, but a Tuesday statement from the Diocese of Providence said it had been postponed.
“Bishop Tobin remains hopeful the he can meet with Congressman Kennedy in a personal and pastoral setting in the very near future,” the diocese reported.
Responding to Rep. Kennedy in his Nov. 12 diocesan newspaper column, Bishop Tobin said he usually does not speak about someone’s faith in a public setting but it has become an issue in his exchange with Rep. Kennedy.
The bishop focused on Rep. Kennedy’s comment in an Oct. 29 letter in which the Congressman said:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”
Bishop Tobin said the statement could not go unchallenged because it raises an important question about what it means to be a Catholic.
In a way, Bishop Tobin commented, disagreement with the Catholic hierarchy does make someone less of a Catholic.
“Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church.
“This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents,” the bishop explained.
He cited sections from canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the layman’s obligation to learn Christian doctrine and to live in accord with it.
One’s refusal to accept the teaching of the Church, Bishop Tobin added, makes one’s communion with the Church “flawed.”
He explained that a Catholic believes and accepts the teaching of the Church “especially on essential matters of faith and morals.” A Catholic must also belong to a local parish, attend Mass on Sunday, and receive the sacraments regularly.
Further, a Catholic must give personal, public, spiritual and financial support to the Church.
Bishop Tobin asked whether Rep. Kennedy accepted these “basic requirements of being a Catholic,” including the Catholic stance on abortion.
The bishop said it was “terrific” that Rep. Kennedy has said he embraces his faith. But he wondered what makes Kennedy a Catholic.
Rep. Kennedy’s rejection of Catholic teaching on abortion is a different category than ordinary human imperfection, Bishop Tobin added. Rather, he wrote, it is “a deliberate and obstinate act of the will” that has been re-affirmed “on many occasions.”
“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church,” the bishop continued.
The prelate told Rep. Kennedy that he wrote his words not to embarrass or judge him but to correct the public record and to invite him into “a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance.”
He said Rep. Kennedy could still repair his relationship with the Church and redeem his public image. Alluding to the book by the congressman’s uncle, President John F. Kennedy, he said Rep. Kennedy could become an authentic “profile in courage” by defending the sanctity of unborn human life.
PROVIDENCE, R.I., November 11 (CNA) - Bishop of Providence Thomas J. Tobin has responded to Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s contention that his dissent from Catholic teaching on abortion does not make him “less of a Catholic.” Saying that such dissent renders the lawmaker's communion “flawed,” he urged Kennedy to become a “profile in courage” and to defend the unborn.
Rep. Kennedy (D-R.I.), the son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, had accused the Catholic Church of fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” because of the Catholic bishops’ opposition to proposed health care reform that does not explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.
Bishop Tobin responded critically to the congressman and asked for an apology.
A meeting had been scheduled between the prelate and the politician, but a Tuesday statement from the Diocese of Providence said it had been postponed.
“Bishop Tobin remains hopeful the he can meet with Congressman Kennedy in a personal and pastoral setting in the very near future,” the diocese reported.
Responding to Rep. Kennedy in his Nov. 12 diocesan newspaper column, Bishop Tobin said he usually does not speak about someone’s faith in a public setting but it has become an issue in his exchange with Rep. Kennedy.
The bishop focused on Rep. Kennedy’s comment in an Oct. 29 letter in which the Congressman said:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”
Bishop Tobin said the statement could not go unchallenged because it raises an important question about what it means to be a Catholic.
In a way, Bishop Tobin commented, disagreement with the Catholic hierarchy does make someone less of a Catholic.
“Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church.
“This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents,” the bishop explained.
He cited sections from canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the layman’s obligation to learn Christian doctrine and to live in accord with it.
One’s refusal to accept the teaching of the Church, Bishop Tobin added, makes one’s communion with the Church “flawed.”
He explained that a Catholic believes and accepts the teaching of the Church “especially on essential matters of faith and morals.” A Catholic must also belong to a local parish, attend Mass on Sunday, and receive the sacraments regularly.
Further, a Catholic must give personal, public, spiritual and financial support to the Church.
Bishop Tobin asked whether Rep. Kennedy accepted these “basic requirements of being a Catholic,” including the Catholic stance on abortion.
The bishop said it was “terrific” that Rep. Kennedy has said he embraces his faith. But he wondered what makes Kennedy a Catholic.
Rep. Kennedy’s rejection of Catholic teaching on abortion is a different category than ordinary human imperfection, Bishop Tobin added. Rather, he wrote, it is “a deliberate and obstinate act of the will” that has been re-affirmed “on many occasions.”
“Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church,” the bishop continued.
The prelate told Rep. Kennedy that he wrote his words not to embarrass or judge him but to correct the public record and to invite him into “a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance.”
He said Rep. Kennedy could still repair his relationship with the Church and redeem his public image. Alluding to the book by the congressman’s uncle, President John F. Kennedy, he said Rep. Kennedy could become an authentic “profile in courage” by defending the sanctity of unborn human life.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
SBA List President Applauds House Approval of Pro-Life Pitts-Stupak Amendment to H.R. 3962, Warns Opponents that Votes Have Consequences
"Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion." -- Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /Christian Newswire/ -- Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Pitts-Stupak amendment to H.R. 3962, America's Healthy Future Act by a vote of 240 to 194, with 64 Democratic members voting in favor of the amendment. Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following comments:
"Tonight the House of Representatives made a principled and politically sound decision to continue our nation's longstanding policy of protecting taxpayers' conscience in the area of abortion funding. We urge the Senate to follow suit. We will remain vigilant, and shift our efforts to the Senate to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill.
"On behalf of the 280,000 members and activists of the Susan B. Anthony List who contacted Congress on this issue, I applaud all those who voted to honor the American legacy of protecting citizens' conscience from conscription into activity to which most are morally opposed. Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion. Supporters of government-funded abortion will now have some explaining to do back home, before voters head to the ballot box in 2010.
"If there's one thing many members of Congress learned from Tuesday's elections, it's the danger of being out of step with your constituents. Votes do have consequences, and the recent tensions over health care reform should drive that message home. We will use every tool in our arsenal to ensure the folks back home know the truth about their legislator's record."
For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Already this year Susan B. Anthony List activists nationwide delivered over 408,703 letters to Congress urging an explicit exclusion of abortion funding from health care reform.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 167,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /Christian Newswire/ -- Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Pitts-Stupak amendment to H.R. 3962, America's Healthy Future Act by a vote of 240 to 194, with 64 Democratic members voting in favor of the amendment. Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following comments:
"Tonight the House of Representatives made a principled and politically sound decision to continue our nation's longstanding policy of protecting taxpayers' conscience in the area of abortion funding. We urge the Senate to follow suit. We will remain vigilant, and shift our efforts to the Senate to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill.
"On behalf of the 280,000 members and activists of the Susan B. Anthony List who contacted Congress on this issue, I applaud all those who voted to honor the American legacy of protecting citizens' conscience from conscription into activity to which most are morally opposed. Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion. Supporters of government-funded abortion will now have some explaining to do back home, before voters head to the ballot box in 2010.
"If there's one thing many members of Congress learned from Tuesday's elections, it's the danger of being out of step with your constituents. Votes do have consequences, and the recent tensions over health care reform should drive that message home. We will use every tool in our arsenal to ensure the folks back home know the truth about their legislator's record."
For the last several months, the Susan B. Anthony List has mobilized tens of thousands of pro-life Americans nationwide to urge Congress to exclude abortion from healthcare reform. Already this year Susan B. Anthony List activists nationwide delivered over 408,703 letters to Congress urging an explicit exclusion of abortion funding from health care reform.
The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 167,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.
Christian Newswire
Voting Records to Go to All Churches, Leading Priest States
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /Christian Newswire/ -- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, stated this morning that the voting records of members of Congress on the Stupak-Pitts amendment to HR 3962 (and other abortion-related votes) will be distributed to every Catholic parish in America, with instructions to each pastor on how to make clear to his congregation the implications of how that congregation's representative voted. "Whatever one's position on abortion itself," Fr. Pavone commented, "the vast majority of Americans have always opposed the idea that taxpayers should fund it. Our plan to inform pastors of these voting records is phase one of a year-long effort to activate Churches as never before regarding what they can legally do in preparation for next year's midterm elections. Publishing voting records in a non-partisan fashion is certainly one of those activities."
Fr. Pavone also said that in his role as President of the National Pro-life Religious Council, he would also involve Churches of other denominations in this project to educate voters on the outcome of the Stupak- Pitts amendment.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro- life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
Fr. Pavone also said that in his role as President of the National Pro-life Religious Council, he would also involve Churches of other denominations in this project to educate voters on the outcome of the Stupak- Pitts amendment.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro- life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
One Million Views of Abortion
STATEN ISLAND, NY, Nov. 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, announced today that the video posted on his You Tube page www.YouTube.com/frfrankpavone that describes a suction abortion has surpassed one million views.
"This is a reason to rejoice," said Fr. Pavone, "because one of the biggest problems we have regarding abortion is that it's hidden. Thanks to videos like this, people who think they are pro-choice become fervently pro-life. We receive testimonies literally every day about such conversions. We invite others to spread these videos."
The suction video, available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0, illustrates the most common abortion procedure. In describing it, Fr. Frank quotes abortionists and medical texts, and uses fetal models with actual instruments used in abortions. It was originally posted in March of 2008.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro- life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
"This is a reason to rejoice," said Fr. Pavone, "because one of the biggest problems we have regarding abortion is that it's hidden. Thanks to videos like this, people who think they are pro-choice become fervently pro-life. We receive testimonies literally every day about such conversions. We invite others to spread these videos."
The suction video, available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0, illustrates the most common abortion procedure. In describing it, Fr. Frank quotes abortionists and medical texts, and uses fetal models with actual instruments used in abortions. It was originally posted in March of 2008.
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro- life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Christian Newswire
Monday, November 02, 2009
Cardinal Levada: No 'celibacy issue' exists in reception of Anglicans into Church
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17554
VATICAN CITY, October 31 (CNA) - In an extensive clarification released on Saturday by the Vatican press office, Fr. Federico Lombardi made clear, on behalf of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Levada, that there is no “celibacy issue” delaying the publication of the Constitution that will establish the procedure for Anglicans to be received into the Catholic Church.
In a statement released in English –breaking the common use of Italian- Fr. Lombardi explained that “there has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli.
The Vatican analyst suggested that the delay in the publication of the Apostolic Constitution on Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church is due to "more than ‘technical’ reasons.”
“According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the root of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision,” Fr. Lombardi’s said.
Responding to other claims that the rule of celibacy for Latin rite clergy would be open to discussion, Fr. Lombardi offered the official comments of Cardinal Levada.
“Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me.”
According to Cardinal Levada, Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution will be ready “by the end of the first week of November” and its delay “is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references.”
The Prefect of the Congregation also explained that “the drafts prepared by the working group, and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by his congregation, have all included the following statement, which is currently Article VI of the Constitution:
- 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of Code of Canon Law 277, §1.
- 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.”
Cardinal Levada further explains that “this article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis.”
With regard to future seminarians, the Cardinal explains that “it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned.”
“Objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See,” Cardinal Levada said.
VATICAN CITY, October 31 (CNA) - In an extensive clarification released on Saturday by the Vatican press office, Fr. Federico Lombardi made clear, on behalf of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Levada, that there is no “celibacy issue” delaying the publication of the Constitution that will establish the procedure for Anglicans to be received into the Catholic Church.
In a statement released in English –breaking the common use of Italian- Fr. Lombardi explained that “there has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli.
The Vatican analyst suggested that the delay in the publication of the Apostolic Constitution on Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church is due to "more than ‘technical’ reasons.”
“According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the root of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision,” Fr. Lombardi’s said.
Responding to other claims that the rule of celibacy for Latin rite clergy would be open to discussion, Fr. Lombardi offered the official comments of Cardinal Levada.
“Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me.”
According to Cardinal Levada, Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution will be ready “by the end of the first week of November” and its delay “is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references.”
The Prefect of the Congregation also explained that “the drafts prepared by the working group, and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by his congregation, have all included the following statement, which is currently Article VI of the Constitution:
- 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of Code of Canon Law 277, §1.
- 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.”
Cardinal Levada further explains that “this article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis.”
With regard to future seminarians, the Cardinal explains that “it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned.”
“Objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See,” Cardinal Levada said.
Same-sex marriage law in D.C. could ‘suppress’ Catholic institutions, archdiocese warns
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17550
WASHINGTON D.C., November 1 (CNA) - A Washington, D.C. City Council proposal to recognize same-sex “marriage” would redefine marriage and could force Catholic educational and charitable institutions to close or face lawsuits, burdensome regulation and the compromising of their faith, the Archdiocese of Washington has warned.
The proposed law, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, redefines marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people.” It says a religious association or a non-profit associated with a religion shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs unless the entity makes those services available to members of the general public.
Representatives of the archdiocese spoke at an Oct. 26 hearing before the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They argued that the law would endanger Catholic services to the general public.
In written testimony, the archdiocese opposed the legislation and “any effort to redefine marriage as any other than that between a man and a woman.” The archdiocese voiced “deep concerns” that the bill would restrict religious freedom if it is passed as drafted.
To continue the archdiocese’s service to the poor of the District of Columbia, the archdiocese testified, a “meaningful” religious exemption is needed to ensure that the government “will not suppress its religious exercise in such a way.”
In its support, the archdiocese cited a legal analysis of the bill by the Williams & Connolly law firm, which said the expected effect of the bill would put the archdiocese in an “untenable” position under the First Amendment unless religious conscience protections are expanded.
“The District will effectively force the Archdiocese either to violate the law or to abandon forms of religious practice – care for the poor, hungry and homeless – that are fundamental to the practice of Catholic social teaching,” the law firm commented.
In addition to overturning the definition of marriage, the legislation has no exemptions for churches, religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or religiously-owned nonprofits such as Catholic Charities if they provide services to the general public or rent space to individuals or groups outside of their faith.
According to the archdiocese, six prominent legal scholars including Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University have independently submitted a letter to City Council Chairman detailing serious religious freedom problems with the legislation.
“They note that religious organizations are at risk of lawsuits if, for example, they decline to offer their facilities to same sex couples or to limit married student housing to couples of the opposite sex,” the archdiocese said in a press release.
Other risks for religious organizations and individuals who cannot recognize same-sex “marriages” include the denial of access to government contracts and access to government facilities, such as leases. Licenses for objecting doctors and social workers could be revoked while child care licenses could be denied.
The proposed law could also allow lawsuits against those who do not provide same-sex benefits to employees and could result in the revocation of the accreditation of religious colleges.
“This would have serious implications in the District of Columbia, where Catholic Charities provides foster care and adoption services for nearly 100 children every year as well as shelter every night for nearly one in three of the city’s homeless men, women and children under contracts with the city, which cannot provide these services itself as efficiently and cost effectively,” the Archdiocese of Washington said.
“Every year, Catholic Charities provides shelter, food, counseling, medical and legal assistance, and more to 68,000 people in the District of Columbia regardless of their faith,” explained Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. “If the Council passes this bill as written, these programs are at risk along with nearly 100 different parish social ministry programs, all of the other ministries operated by the Catholic Church and even meeting space for groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Scouts and neighborhood organizations who partner with churches.”
The lack of an adequate exemption, the archdiocese said, would require religious organizations and individuals to choose “between exercising their faith and following the law.” This would cause “division and dissatisfaction” among the citizens of D.C., it warned.
WASHINGTON D.C., November 1 (CNA) - A Washington, D.C. City Council proposal to recognize same-sex “marriage” would redefine marriage and could force Catholic educational and charitable institutions to close or face lawsuits, burdensome regulation and the compromising of their faith, the Archdiocese of Washington has warned.
The proposed law, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, redefines marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people.” It says a religious association or a non-profit associated with a religion shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs unless the entity makes those services available to members of the general public.
Representatives of the archdiocese spoke at an Oct. 26 hearing before the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They argued that the law would endanger Catholic services to the general public.
In written testimony, the archdiocese opposed the legislation and “any effort to redefine marriage as any other than that between a man and a woman.” The archdiocese voiced “deep concerns” that the bill would restrict religious freedom if it is passed as drafted.
To continue the archdiocese’s service to the poor of the District of Columbia, the archdiocese testified, a “meaningful” religious exemption is needed to ensure that the government “will not suppress its religious exercise in such a way.”
In its support, the archdiocese cited a legal analysis of the bill by the Williams & Connolly law firm, which said the expected effect of the bill would put the archdiocese in an “untenable” position under the First Amendment unless religious conscience protections are expanded.
“The District will effectively force the Archdiocese either to violate the law or to abandon forms of religious practice – care for the poor, hungry and homeless – that are fundamental to the practice of Catholic social teaching,” the law firm commented.
In addition to overturning the definition of marriage, the legislation has no exemptions for churches, religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or religiously-owned nonprofits such as Catholic Charities if they provide services to the general public or rent space to individuals or groups outside of their faith.
According to the archdiocese, six prominent legal scholars including Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington & Lee University have independently submitted a letter to City Council Chairman detailing serious religious freedom problems with the legislation.
“They note that religious organizations are at risk of lawsuits if, for example, they decline to offer their facilities to same sex couples or to limit married student housing to couples of the opposite sex,” the archdiocese said in a press release.
Other risks for religious organizations and individuals who cannot recognize same-sex “marriages” include the denial of access to government contracts and access to government facilities, such as leases. Licenses for objecting doctors and social workers could be revoked while child care licenses could be denied.
The proposed law could also allow lawsuits against those who do not provide same-sex benefits to employees and could result in the revocation of the accreditation of religious colleges.
“This would have serious implications in the District of Columbia, where Catholic Charities provides foster care and adoption services for nearly 100 children every year as well as shelter every night for nearly one in three of the city’s homeless men, women and children under contracts with the city, which cannot provide these services itself as efficiently and cost effectively,” the Archdiocese of Washington said.
“Every year, Catholic Charities provides shelter, food, counseling, medical and legal assistance, and more to 68,000 people in the District of Columbia regardless of their faith,” explained Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. “If the Council passes this bill as written, these programs are at risk along with nearly 100 different parish social ministry programs, all of the other ministries operated by the Catholic Church and even meeting space for groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Scouts and neighborhood organizations who partner with churches.”
The lack of an adequate exemption, the archdiocese said, would require religious organizations and individuals to choose “between exercising their faith and following the law.” This would cause “division and dissatisfaction” among the citizens of D.C., it warned.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
'We are never alone,' Pope exclaims on All Saints Day
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17555
VATICAN CITY, November 1 (CNA) - To the faithful gathered on Sunday in St. Peter’s Square for the Angelus, Pope Benedict XVI presented the communion of saints, a “beautiful and comforting” reality that says “we are never alone.” In particular he held up the ancient cult of martyrs in the early Church, and in this Year for Priests, “the saintly priests, both those canonized…and those many more that are known to the Lord.”
Pope Benedict also spoke of Monday’s commemoration of the faithful departed, also known as All Souls Day. "I would ask,” he said, “that this liturgical memory be lived in a genuine Christian spirit, that is, in light of the Paschal Mystery.”
Benedict XVI explained that Christ died and rose again and opened the door to the house of the Father, the kingdom of life and peace: “Those who follow Jesus in this life are welcomed where He came before us. So as we visit cemeteries, let us remember that there, in the tombs, are only the mortal remains of our loved ones awaiting the final resurrection.”
Pope Benedict concluded his remarks by teaching that the most proper and effective way to honor and pray for the faithful departed is by offering acts of faith, hope and charity: “In union with the Eucharistic Sacrifice, we can intercede for their eternal salvation, and experience the deepest communion, as we wait to find ourselves together again, to enjoy forever the Love that created and redeemed us."
After the Angelus prayer, the Pope recalled the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Joint Declaration between the World Lutheran Federation and the Catholic Church. "That document,” he said, “attests to an agreement between Lutherans and Catholics on the fundamental truth of the doctrine of justification, a truth that brings us to the very heart of the Gospel and the essential issues of our lives.”
The Holy Father expounded on the acceptance and redemption of man by God, saying, “Our existence is part of the horizon of grace. It is led by a merciful God who forgives our sin and calls us to a new life following in the footsteps of his Son. We live by the grace of God and are called to respond to his gift. This frees us from fear and gives us hope and courage in a world full of uncertainty, anxiety, suffering."
This anniversary, the Pontiff explained, is an occasion to remember the truth about the justification of man, witnessed together, to unite Catholics and Lutherans in ecumenical celebrations and to further investigate this issue and others that are the subject of ecumenical dialogue.
“I sincerely hope that this important anniversary will help bring forward the path towards the full visible unity of all the disciples of Christ.”
VATICAN CITY, November 1 (CNA) - To the faithful gathered on Sunday in St. Peter’s Square for the Angelus, Pope Benedict XVI presented the communion of saints, a “beautiful and comforting” reality that says “we are never alone.” In particular he held up the ancient cult of martyrs in the early Church, and in this Year for Priests, “the saintly priests, both those canonized…and those many more that are known to the Lord.”
Pope Benedict also spoke of Monday’s commemoration of the faithful departed, also known as All Souls Day. "I would ask,” he said, “that this liturgical memory be lived in a genuine Christian spirit, that is, in light of the Paschal Mystery.”
Benedict XVI explained that Christ died and rose again and opened the door to the house of the Father, the kingdom of life and peace: “Those who follow Jesus in this life are welcomed where He came before us. So as we visit cemeteries, let us remember that there, in the tombs, are only the mortal remains of our loved ones awaiting the final resurrection.”
Pope Benedict concluded his remarks by teaching that the most proper and effective way to honor and pray for the faithful departed is by offering acts of faith, hope and charity: “In union with the Eucharistic Sacrifice, we can intercede for their eternal salvation, and experience the deepest communion, as we wait to find ourselves together again, to enjoy forever the Love that created and redeemed us."
After the Angelus prayer, the Pope recalled the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Joint Declaration between the World Lutheran Federation and the Catholic Church. "That document,” he said, “attests to an agreement between Lutherans and Catholics on the fundamental truth of the doctrine of justification, a truth that brings us to the very heart of the Gospel and the essential issues of our lives.”
The Holy Father expounded on the acceptance and redemption of man by God, saying, “Our existence is part of the horizon of grace. It is led by a merciful God who forgives our sin and calls us to a new life following in the footsteps of his Son. We live by the grace of God and are called to respond to his gift. This frees us from fear and gives us hope and courage in a world full of uncertainty, anxiety, suffering."
This anniversary, the Pontiff explained, is an occasion to remember the truth about the justification of man, witnessed together, to unite Catholics and Lutherans in ecumenical celebrations and to further investigate this issue and others that are the subject of ecumenical dialogue.
“I sincerely hope that this important anniversary will help bring forward the path towards the full visible unity of all the disciples of Christ.”
Papal Infallibility
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
Vatican II’s Explanation
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Based on Christ’s Mandate
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).
Some Clarifications
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
Peter Not Infallible?
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).
Their "Favorite Case"
According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.
But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."
Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.
The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.
This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.
One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).
If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.
All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Source:
Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA
Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042
U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200
Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
Vatican II’s Explanation
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Based on Christ’s Mandate
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).
Some Clarifications
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
Peter Not Infallible?
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).
Their "Favorite Case"
According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.
But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."
Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.
The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.
This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.
One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).
If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.
All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Source:
Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA
Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042
U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)