Texas Catholic Conference Blog

Cardinal DiNardo welcomes HHS Exclusion of Abortion from Federal Insurance Program, Calls for Permanent Law

2010-07-15T15:54:00.001-05:00

Following public criticisms of new federally-funded health insurance plans that would have covered elective abortions in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a statement that the agency will act to exclude abortion from this program. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, welcomed the statement as averting an “alarming precedent” and called for permanent law to exclude abortion from all programs under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

“We welcome this new policy,” the Cardinal said, “while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients.”

“This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “The issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates.”

“It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening,” the Cardinal concluded.

The full text of his statement follows:

This week it was reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had approved a new high-risk health insurance program for residents of Pennsylvania that by its terms would cover abortions without meaningful limits. This federal program, established by the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), will provide health services until 2014 to uninsured persons with pre-existing conditions. The Pennsylvania plan, while purporting not to fund “elective” abortions, made clear in its text that all abortions that satisfy the requirements of certain Pennsylvania statutes (i.e., all abortions that are not illegal in that state) would be covered, and reimbursed, with a combination of private premiums and federal funds drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This first announcement that $160 million in federal funds would be used to provide pro-abortion coverage raised an alarming precedent. Later the news also became public that the state of New Mexico would be covering “elective abortions” in its federal high-risk pool, which was already accepting enrollees.

Last night, however, HHS reacted to public criticisms by announcing that it will act to exclude abortion from this federally funded program, in accord with the assurances that Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have repeatedly made that PPACA will not be used to promote abortion. We welcome this new policy, while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients. This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion. Such legislation would mirror the Hyde amendment and similar provisions which prevent such abortion funding in all other federal health programs.

In this program as in others, the issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates. It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening.

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here
To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Bishops Concerned over Federal Court Rulings Rejecting Marriage as Between One Man, One Woman

2010-07-12T14:00:00.001-05:00

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, expressed grave concern regarding recent rulings by a federal judge in Massachusetts rejecting the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Archbishop Kurtz offered his remarks after two rulings on July 8 that held that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Section 3 provides that for purposes of federal statutes, regulations, and rulings, “marriage” means the legal union of one man and one woman.

“Marriage – the union of one man and one woman – is a unique, irreplaceable institution. The very fabric of our society depends upon it. Nothing compares to the exclusive and permanent union of husband and wife. The state has a duty to employ the civil law to reinforce – and, indeed, to privilege uniquely – this vital institution of civil society. The reasons to support marriage by law are countless, not least to protect the unique place of husbands and wives, the indispensible role of fathers and mothers, and the rights of children, who are often the most vulnerable among us. And yet, a judge has decided that a marriage-reinforcing law like DOMA fails to serve even a single, minimally rational government interest. On behalf of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, I express grave concern over these dangerous and disappointing rulings which ignore even the most apparent purposes of marriage and thus offend true justice,” he said.

The court rulings were based on two separate lawsuits which had been filed in Massachusetts.One ruling states that section 3 of DOMA violates the equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (see Gill v. Office of Personnel Management). The other ruling holds that section 3 of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause (see Commonwealth of Mass. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).

In the Gill ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro commented that, “as irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest,” section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

“To claim that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is somehow irrational, prejudiced, or even bigoted, is a great disservice not only to truth but to the good of our nation,” Archbishop Kurtz said. “Marriage exists prior to the state and is not open to redefinition by the state. The role of the state, instead, is to respect and reinforce marriage. Thursday’s decision, by contrast, uses the power of the state to attack the perennial definition of marriage, reducing it merely to the union of any two consenting adults. But only a man and a woman are capable of entering into the unique, life-giving bond of marriage, with all of its specific responsibilities. Protecting marriage as only the union of one man and one woman is not merely a legitimate, but a vital government interest.”

The USCCB Office of General Counsel noted that the two court rulings are mistaken, both on the basis of the unique meaning of marriage, and because nothing in the Constitution forbids Congress from defining “marriage” – as that term is used in federal statutes, regulations, and rulings—as the union of one man and one woman.

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here
To go back to the TCC home page, click here

A Critical Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures

2010-07-12T10:14:00.000-05:00

On June 23, 2010, the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine released a clarification entitled: The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures. Since most folks don’t read every new posting on the vast USCCB web-site, this helpful statement could be overlooked.

The statement notes that “On November 5, 2009, medical personnel at the St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, performed a procedure that caused the death of an unborn child. Most Reverend Thomas Olmsted, the Bishop of Phoenix, has judged that this procedure was in fact a direct abortion and so morally wrong….”

When Bishop Olmsted spoke, many a commentator became a self-appointed expert on the Church’s moral teaching overnight. The national media certainly caused confusion among Catholics and the general public as to what the Church teaches regarding illegitimate and legitimate medical procedures for addressing the risk to a mother’s health or even life during a pregnancy.

The Committee on Doctrine reminded us that “…. abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted… One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason… By contrast, in some situations, it may be permissible to perform a medical procedure on a pregnant woman that directly treats a serious health problem but that also has a secondary effect that leads to the death of the developing child… The difference can be seen in two different scenarios in which the unborn child is not yet old enough to survive outside the womb.”

“In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman… The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child's death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning… The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved. As the Church has said many times, direct abortion is never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means....”

“In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer… The woman's health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child. The child will not be able to live long after the uterus is removed from the woman's body, but the death of the child is an unintended and unavoidable side effect and not the aim of the surgery. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ. It is morally justified when the continued presence of the organ causes problems for the rest of the body.”

“Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong… Nothing, therefore, can justify a direct abortion. No circumstance, no purpose, no law

whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”

May the Law of God, proclaimed by our Church and through our bishops, inspire each of us to work for the protection of every human person, mother and child alike.

To read the entire statement, go to:

www.usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

Tom Grenchik is Executive Director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Go to www.usccb.org/prolife to learn more about the bishops’ pro-life activities.

Celebrate Independence with a Prayer for our Nation

2010-07-01T16:32:00.034-05:00

We wish you a safe and joyous Independence Day weekend! As we celebrate Independence Day, we invite you to pray for our nation:

God our Father,
Giver of life,
we entrust the United States of America to Your loving care.

You are the rock on which this nation was founded.
You alone are the true source of our cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Reclaim this land for Your glory and dwell among Your people.

Send Your Spirit to touch the hearts of our nation´s leaders.
Open their minds to the great worth of human life and the responsibilities that accompany human freedom.
Remind Your people that true happiness is rooted in seeking and doing Your will.
Thank you for the freedom to act as Faithful Citizens and to advocate for the least among us.
We pray for our brothers and sisters who do not share in our freedoms.

Through the intercession of Mary Immaculate,
Patroness of our land,
grant us the courage to reject the "culture of death", moral relativism, and all the snares of the devil.
Lead us into a new millennium of life in your divine light.
We ask this through Christ Our Lord.

Amen.

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Bishops Urge Senate to Remove Abortion Amendment from Defense Bill

2010-06-29T14:46:00.000-05:00

A Senate committee amendment that would authorize the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world is “misguided” and should be removed from the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3454), said the Chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a June 29 letter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston urged Senators to remove this amendment on the grounds that it breaks with longstanding federal and military policies on government promotion of abortion.

Cardinal DiNardo said it was disingenuous to suggest, as the amendment’s proponents have, that the amendment is “moderate” in requiring patients at military facilities to pay for their abortions. “Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itself and accepts payment for doing so?” the Cardinal wrote. He cited a 1989 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court saying that “the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so.”

Cardinal DiNardo also noted the longstanding nature of the current policy against providing abortions at military health facilities, which has been in place for 22 years with the exception of 1993-1995.

“During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions,” the Cardinal added.

Cardinal DiNardo also said that the current military policy is in keeping with federal policy in general, noting: “Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions.”

Calling on the Senate not to approve the bill unless it maintains current law, as the bill approved by the House of Representatives already does, Cardinal DiNardo concluded that “this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions. During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not.”

Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese of Military Services had written an earlier letter to the Senate against the proposed policy change. Cardinal DiNardo endorsed his letter as well, noting that it urges Congress “not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it.”

Full text of the letter can be found online at: www.usccb.org/prolife/DiNardo-Ltr-Military-Abortions-6-29-2010.pdf

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Santiago, Cuba Archbishop Ibáñez To Appear Live on ‘Nuestra Fe En Vivo’

2010-06-24T10:58:00.001-05:00

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – In a first for an American television network, Cuban Archbishop Dionisio Guillermo Garcia Ibáñez from the Archdiocese of Santiago de Cuba will travel to the U.S. to appear live on EWTN Español.

He will guest on at 6 p.m. ET, Mon., June 28 on EWTN Español’s flagship television program, “Nuestra Fe En Vivo”with Host Pepe Alonso. In addition, the Archbishop will record a show for “EWTN Live,” to be aired on sister station EWTN at a later date. He will use a translator for that show, which is in English.

Leer este artículo en Español

“It is a great honor for EWTN to host the Archbishop and for him to agree to appear on our show,” said EWTN President and CEO Michael P. Warsaw. “The Archbishop is a courageous man who has many interesting stories to tell.”

Cuba’s relationship with the Catholic Church appears to be warming since Raul Castro became president. The Archbishop will discuss this relationship as well as the upcoming anniversary of “Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre,” also known as “Our Lady of Charity.”

EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 29th year, is available in over 160 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com and publishing arm, EWTN is the largest religious media network in the world.

Estará en VIVO en ‘Nuestra Fe En Vivo’ al Arzobispo Ibáñez de Santiago, Cuba

Irondale, AL, EE.UU. (EWTN) – El Arzobispo de Santiago de Cuba, Monseñor Dionisio Guillermo García Ibáñez, será entrevistado por EWTN en el programa estelar de la cadena, “Nuestra fe en vivo”, conducido por Pepe Alonso.

El programa se emitirá en vivo el lunes 28 de junio a las 6 p.m. (hora de Miami), y se repetirá en los horarios habituales durante esa semana.

Por otra parte, el Arzobispo grabará también una entrevista –intérprete mediante- para el programa en inglés “EWTN Live”, que saldrá al aire en fecha a confirmar para la señal en inglés de EWTN.

“Es un gran honor para EWTN recibir la visita del Arzobispo y que él haya aceptado otorgarnos su presencia en nuestra pantalla”, expresó Michael P. Warsaw, Presidente y CEO de EWTN. “Es un hombre muy valiente, con muchísimas anécdotas interesantes para compartir.”

La relación de Cuba con la Iglesia Católica parece estar en vías de mejorar desde que Raúl Castro asumió la presidencia de la isla. El Arzobispo comentará acerca de esa relación, así como sobre el próximo aniversario de “Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre”.

En su 29° año de existencia, EWTN la Red Global Católica está disponible en más de 160 millones de hogares en más de 140 países y territorios. Con sus servicios satelitales directos de televisión y radio, sus red radial de AM y FM, su estación de radio de onda corta, su sitio de Internet www.ewtn.com y su brazo editorial, EWTN es el mayor multimedios religioso del mundo.

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

World Cup Fever: Let the ball roll

2010-06-23T09:27:00.000-05:00

Entre Amigos-Opinion column
By Mar Muñoz-Visoso

Leer este artículo en Español (PDF)

Eight years ago my husband complained that we needed a new television set. The old 19-inch screen I brought along a few years earlier mysteriously started to have problems just as the Korea/Japan 2002 World Cup was unfolding. Drama turned into comedy when he also started wearing his reading glasses, which he very seldom uses, because he “couldn’t read” the scores.

Needless to say, a couple of days later we went to the store and came back with a silver colored 32” — still the old fat monitor since flat-screens were then out of reach for most mortals. For the following three weeks there was nothing else to be seen on TV. We’ll, he is at it again. World Cup fever is back — though this time the existing screen will have to do!

There is something special about soccer/football. It is interesting how a mostly non-practicing soccer fan who follows scores and watches a game every now and then, can turn into such a fanatic every four years. And he is not alone. In the spirit of filial love and shared allegiances, I just got wind that last week he mailed his “playera tricolor” (the Mexican’s team jersey) to his mom —so she can properly root for Mexico— after she complained that “you got one to your dad but you never gave me one.” An otherwise subdued and devoted family woman, she is now gearing up for the “cheers and tears” of the World Cup, so excited one can hardly recognize her!

Meanwhile my husband hopes to get a new edition of “la roja” (Spain’s red shirt), while we are in “la madre patria” (“the motherland”) this summer during most of the Cup. The children, of course, must root for the U.S. team, he has admonish them; while mom (yours truly), practical as she is, will bestow allegiances as events develop and matches emerge. A long time ago I learned it is almost impossible to escape World Cup fever on either side of the Atlantic, so you better learn to enjoy it your way…

Time magazine probably has it right when its June 14 cover calls soccer “the global game.” It truly is so. Known as “football” anywhere else in the world, its simple rules and accessibility make it easy to play anywhere by almost anyone. During the World Cup, national tensions ease, national pride emerges unabashed and, as teams get eliminated, allegiances get shifted: sometimes to the next best team in your continent, sometimes to your favorite player’s team. People in Japan, Cameroun or Mexico, and more and more in the U.S., know exactly who David Villa, Leo Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo or Samuel Eto’o are.

Even those who hate football note that there is no boring game during the World Cup. The show goes on as much in the bleachers and outside the stadium as it does on the field. It is a great opportunity to showcase sportsmanship and technical ability and, for the fans, to have fun with people from all over the world. It is also a great stage to make a statement. FIFA, the international agency regulating soccer, will do so with this Cup’s humanitarian theme: “One goal, education for all.”

There are other examples. For instance, there is no shortage of players who make the sign of the cross as they enter the field, praying for a good game and hopefully no serious injuries. Some also point to heaven when they score to dedicate it to God or cross themselves in thanksgiving for the favor received. For some it is a calculated move. Others are simply grateful and like to show it in public. Whichever the case, it is always a powerful testimony that reminds us we too are called to be grateful and not shy about our faith.

Speaking of which, I know a few pastors, big soccer fans themselves, who will be praying that during World Cup fever people don’t give up attending Mass on Sunday. “Primero la obligación y luego la devoción” (obligation first, then devotion) an old Spanish adage says. Or does it work in reverse in this case?

At any rate, all the best wishes for the first World Cup played in the African continent. May South Africa and all of Africa emerge from it as the continent of hope many say it is. Arriba Sudáfrica! And let the best team win.

---
Mar Muñoz-Visoso is assistant director of Media Relations at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Follow Mar’s bilingual updates on Twitter: http://twitter.com/USCCBMarMunoz

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Cardinal DiNardo Voices 'Grave Concern' Over FDA Plan to Approve Abortion Drug for ‘Emergency Contraception

2010-06-18T10:05:00.000-05:00

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities voiced “grave concern” to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its move toward approving a new drug that may induce early abortions as an “emergency contraceptive.” In a June 17 letter to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the FDA, Cardinal DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston criticized the FDA’s move to hold an advisory committee meeting on the drug Ulipristal “without broad public input or a full record on the drug’s safety for women or their unborn children.” (Full text of the letter follows.)

The Cardinal raised concerns that Ulipristal is more similar in effect to the drug RU-486, which can cause abortions several weeks into pregnancy, than it is to other emergency contraceptives, which are believed to have no post-implantation effects.

“Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion,” said Cardinal DiNardo. “They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present Ulipristal simply as a ‘contraceptive.’ In fact, FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for ‘off-label’ use simply as an abortion drug – including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman's knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.”

Cardinal DiNardo went on to cite the support of this and previous Administrations for federal laws ensuring no one is involved in an abortion without his or her knowledge or consent, as well as the Obama Administration’s rationale for supporting broad access to contraceptives as a means of reducing abortions.
“Plans for approving a known abortion-causing drug as a ‘contraceptive’ for American women is not consistent with the stated policy of the Administration on these matters,” the Cardinal wrote.

Full text of the letter follows.

Dear Dr. Hamburg:

I am writing because of grave concern over the FDA’s current process for approving the drug Ulipristal (with the proposed trade name of Ella) for use as an “emergency contraceptive.” The decision to hold an advisory committee hearing on the drug today, without broad public input or a full record on the drug’s safety for women or their unborn children, does not demonstrate an understanding of the new medical and moral issues it presents.

Concerns have been raised over other drugs considered for “emergency contraception,” such as the “Plan B” regimen, because they might act not only to prevent ovulation but also to prevent implantation of the developing embryo in his or her mother’s womb. However, such drugs were thought to have no post-implantation effects. Ulipristal is a close analogue to the abortion drug RU-486, with the same biological effect – that is, it can disrupt an established pregnancy weeks after conception has taken place.[i]

This drug is contraindicated for women who are or may be pregnant. Yet its proposed use here is targeted precisely at women who may already have conceived, as it would be administered within five days after “unprotected” sex or contraceptive failure. No existing pregnancy test can exclude the possibility that a new life has been conceived in this time frame. Indeed, advocates praise this drug as an advance precisely because it seems to retain its full efficacy five days after intercourse – that is, after the opportunity to prevent fertilization has passed.

Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion. They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present Ulipristal simply as a “contraceptive.” In fact, FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for “off-label” use simply as an abortion drug – including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman's knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.

For many years, Congress has acted to ensure that the federal government does not fund abortion, and does not endanger or destroy the early human embryo even in the name of important medical research. This Administration, like many before it, has voiced support for federal laws to ensure that no one is involved in abortion without his or her knowledge or consent. And the Administration’s support for broad access to contraception has been defended as serving the goal of reducing abortions. Plans for approving a known abortion-causing drug as a “contraceptive” for American women is not consistent with the stated policy of the Administration on these matters.

Please know that I appreciate any attention the FDA can give to these serious concerns, and I will follow the Administration’s further discussion and actions on this issue with great interest.
Sincerely,

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

________________________________________
[i] Documentation on this and other medical aspects of the issue is cited in FDA testimony submitted to the FDA by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, available at www.aaplog.org/?page_id=808.

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here
To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Apostleship of the Sea Urges Catholics to Assist Those Harmed by Oil Spill

2010-06-17T10:01:00.001-05:00

The overseer of the maritime ministry of the U.S. bishops expressed solidarity with those impacted by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and announced the creation of a network to help with the human and environmental harm caused by the disaster.

In a video, Bishop J. Kevin Boland of Savannah, Georgia, bishop promoter of the Apostleship of the Sea, urged Catholics to assist the work already being done by the Church to address this disaster.

He said the Apostleship of the Sea is setting up a network of diocesan relief efforts along the Gulf Coast and cited the work of Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese and New Orleans (www.ccano.org) as one avenue for getting involved.

Bishop Boland also offered prayers for the victims of the oil rig explosion and their families and for the fishermen and others whose livelihoods are threatened by the environmental damage to the Gulf. He also urged Catholic to pray for the success of efforts to stop the spill and clean up the Gulf.

“It is God’s creation,” Bishop Boland said of the environment. “He has given it to us to take care of it. We must do all that we can, both as individuals and as a Church and as a community to restore to its proper dimensions and its proper beauty what God has given to us.”

The Apostleship of the Sea provides spiritual care to seafarers and all who rely on the sea for their livelihood. For more information on the Apostleship of the Sea and its relief efforts in the Gulf, visit: www.usccb.org/pcmrt/onmove/aos.shtml

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Regional Bishops Issue Joint Statement on Migration

2010-06-11T15:25:00.000-05:00

Cooperation among governments in region, economic development key factors

U.S. should afford legal protection to foreign workers

Participants at the Catholic bishops’ Regional Consultation on Migration in Washington, June 2-4 issued a joint statement calling for protection, hospitality, service and justice to immigrants throughout the hemisphere.

The bishops called attention to several issues that should be addressed on a regional level, such as the promotion of sustainable economic development in the hemisphere, violence and drug smuggling, human trafficking, protection of migrants, refugees and other vulnerable population, and special assistance to Haiti.

They also called upon the Congress of the United States and the Obama Administration to affirm the country’s tradition as a nation of immigrants and “reform U.S. immigration law to allow migrants who work hard in the U.S. economy to enjoy the benefits of legal protection.”

“This reform would preclude the need to impose criminal penalties on persons not lawfully admitted,” said the bishops. “It also would end deportations of family members and the breakup of families.”

The meeting congregated Catholic bishops and staff of Catholic agencies working with migrants in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Also present were Archbishop Antonio Maria Veglio, president of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Itinerant People and representatives from the Latin American Council of Bishops’ Conferences (CELAM).

Full text of statement follows.

Statement of the Participants in the Regional Consultation on Migration

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Washington, D.C.

June 4, 2010

As Catholic bishops of the United States, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada gathered at our regional consultation meeting in Washington, D.C., June 2-4, 2010, joined at our meeting by religious and lay persons working with migrants, we reaffirm our commitment to vulnerable persons who migrate in search of protection or for a better life for themselves and their families. We acknowledge and appreciate the presence at our meeting of His Excellency Archbishop Antonio Maria Veglio, President of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Itinerant People and representative of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

We offer several reflections on the current situation regarding migration in this hemisphere, consistent with our long-held view that persons on the move should be protected from harm while in transit and welcomed with hospitality, service, and justice. This view is consistent with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who calls upon all to “welcome the stranger” and who declared “for whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me.” (Mt. 25: 35, 40).

We stand in solidarity with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who in his recent address to the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Itinerant People, called upon the nations of the world to establish policies and plans which give migrants and refugees “opportunities to obtain legal status, promoting the fair rights to family reunification, asylum and refugee status, compensating for necessary restrictive measures and opposing the appalling trafficking of human beings.” We echo the Holy Father’s call to international organizations, international bodies, and nation-states to “resolve the crucial questions of security and development to the benefit of all.” The lack of security and development are the very factors that contribute to the need for people to migrate.

It is a reality that in this hemisphere the human dignity of persons on the move continues to be violated by governmental and nongovernmental actors alike in source, transit, and receiving nations. Migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers are mistreated and exploited both by government officials and law enforcement officials, as well as smugglers and other criminal elements as they flee poverty, natural disaster, violence, or persecution. The explosion of human trafficking in this hemisphere is a scourge which continues to grow, victimizing men, women, and children.

At the same time, there are many in the Church and other people of goodwill who work hard to protect the rights of persons on the move and who work to change laws to ensure the protection of basic human rights. We stand with them as together we try to educate others about the harsh realities of migration and the need to demonstrate compassion and justice to those less fortunate.

We also acknowledge and support the right of our governments to ensure the integrity of their borders and the common good of their citizenry. We strongly believe, however, that these goals can be achieved and the rule of law preserved without violating human rights. Governments can and must collaborate effectively to achieve regional development and stability.

With these perspectives in mind, we call attention to specific issues which should be addressed on a regional basis, with cooperation from all governments of this hemisphere:

The Promotion of Sustainable Economic Development in this Hemisphere. The factors which compel people to migrate in search of work are primarily, but not solely, economic. Families in poorer countries struggle to meet their most basic needs and living-wage jobs remain scarce. Root economic causes of migration must be addressed so that migrants can remain in their home countries and support their families. The impact of current and proposed trade agreements and agricultural policy in the region must be reviewed in terms of the displacement of small farmers and workers, and subsequent migration.

For example, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), touted initially as the key to economic development in the region, has failed to reach those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. International institutions, such as international lending institutions, have not adequately addressed the needs of the poor in the region.

The goals of the millennium have not been fully realized, and now climate change is adding another element to the migration phenomenon. These economic tools must be used in a way that increases the ability of the poor to escape poverty and not be forced to migrate to other countries.

The Economic Drivers of Violence. Economic insecurity and deprivation add to a number of social issues that together provide fertile breeding grounds for violence. The lack of economic opportunity as well as the lack of a sense of social meaning, especially among younger adults, fuels the resort to underground and illicit activities in many of the countries of the hemisphere. The increasing power of drug smuggling networks must be combated, both by law enforcement efforts but also by eradicating the market for these illicit substances, particularly in the United States.

The Protection of Migrants, Refugees, and Other Vulnerable People in Transit. Persons on the move in this hemisphere are subject to exploitation, abuse, and prolonged detention in all countries. Laws must be examined and reformed in each country to establish mechanisms to ensure safe passage, protection, and due process for migrants and their families, while ensuring that violent criminals are constrained.

The Scourge of Human Trafficking. While progress has been made in raising awareness of human trafficking in this hemisphere, much more must be achieved to eradicate this scourge. Governments and nongovernmental actors must work together to address the economic and social factors that make people vulnerable to trafficking. They must root out trafficking networks, and provide rescue and services to victims. Special attention must be paid to children, who are the most vulnerable victims.

Assistance for Haiti. We call upon all governments of this hemisphere to provide special care to the people of Haiti as they attempt to rebuild their country after the January earthquake. We urge all nations to continue with their generosity and support, but also to apply and amend their migration laws to accommodate, to the greatest extent possible, Haitians and their families who can no longer remain in Haiti.

As an immigrant nation, the United States and the American people, including Catholics, have traditionally welcomed newcomers and helped to integrate them into the country. We call upon the Congress of the United States and the Obama Administration to affirm this honored tradition and reform U.S. immigration law to allow migrants who work hard in the U.S. economy to enjoy the benefits of legal protection.

This reform would preclude the need to impose criminal penalties on persons not lawfully admitted. It also would end deportations of family members and the breakup of families. In all countries of the region we continue to welcome and protect migrants and call upon our governments to make their immigration laws more humane.

As pastors, we have an obligation to defend the rights of all persons, particularly the most vulnerable members of the human community. We call upon all members of the Catholic community in our nations to stand in solidarity with persons on the move and to work for their just and humane treatment.

May we be worthy of the admonition of our Lord and Savior, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me….” (Mt. 25: 34-35).

Delivered in Washington, D.C., on 4 June, the year of our Lord, 2010

Signatories:

Most Reverend Rutilio del Riego

Auxiliary Bishop of San Bernardino

Chairman, Subcommittee for the Pastoral Care of Migrants, Refugees and People on the Move

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Most Reverend Pedro Pablo Elizondo

Bishop of Chetumal

Member, Commission for the Pastoral Care of Persons on the Move

Mexican Bishops’ Conference

Most Reverend François Gayot, S.M.M.

Archbishop Emeritus of Cap-Haïtien, Haïti

Most Reverend Pedro Hernández

Bishop of Darién, Panamá

Most Reverend Bernardo Hombach

Bishop Emeritus of Granada, Nicaragua

Chairman of Human Mobility, Bishops’ Conference of Nicaragua

Most Reverend Fracois Lapierre

Bishop of Saint-Hyacinthe

Episcopal Conference of Canada

Most Reverend John Manz

Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago

USCCB

Most Reverend Thomas Maurus Muldoon

Bishop of Juticalpa

Chairman of Social Services and Caritas

Episcopal Conference of Honduras

Most Reverend Francisco Ozoria

Bishop of San Pedro de Macorَís

President of the Commission on Persons on the Move

Episcopal Conference of the Dominican Republic

Most Reverend Alvaro L. Ramazzini Imeri

Bishop of San Marcos, Guatemala

Most Reverend Ricardo Ramirez

Bishop of Las Cruces

Most Reverend Rafael Romo

Archbishop of Tijuana

Chairman, Pastoral Care of Persons on the Move

Episcopal Conference of Mexico

Most Reverend Angel San Casimiro

Bishop of Alajuela

Episcopal Conference of Costa Rica

Most Reverend Anthony Taylor

Bishop of Little Rock

USCCB

Most Reverend Raúl Vera

Bishop of Saltillo, Mexico

Most Reverend John C. Wester

Bishop of Salt Lake City

Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here
To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Action Alert: Help Families Impacted by Economic Recession!

2010-06-03T12:00:00.006-05:00

Take Action Now!

The House and Senate are considering a bill, The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213), that would, among other things, provide initial funding for the National Housing Trust Fund, continue support for job creation through the TANF emergency fund, and extend eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits through December 31, 2010.

Click here to contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to help families still struggling from the impacts of the economic recession today.

WHY IS THIS ACTION IMPORTANT NOW?

The nation is slowly recovering from a recession that began in 2007. This has been one of the worst economic periods for American families since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The national unemployment rate continues to hover near ten percent, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, and 44 percent (six million people) have been out of work for more than six months. This is the highest number of long-term unemployed since the United States began keeping that data in 1948.

Ten million more workers have given up looking for a job, and others are working part-time, but want full-time work. Since the recession began, the U.S. economy has lost 8.5 million jobs, which means with new entrants to the workforce, eleven million new jobs must be created to return to the pre-recession unemployment rate of five percent.

WHAT DOES THIS ISSUE HAVE TO DO WITH MY FAITH?

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development put forth the following six moral criteria for job creation and economic recovery legislation:

1) Respect for life and dignity: Do policy initiatives respect and enhance the life and dignity of all? Do programs for education and job creation recognize and affirm the diversity of gifts and talents each person has to contribute to the common good?

2) Subsidiarity and solidarity: Are policy initiatives and investments focused on local communities? Are they adaptable and flexible funding enough to respond to the needs of differing communities? Will policies lead to a shared recovery for all?

3) Respect for marriage and family life: Do federal programs provide a genuine safety net, create jobs and offer opportunities that are supportive of and strengthen quality family life? Does the policy respect and encourage family ties that are so important on matters of poverty and the economy?

4) Priority for the poor and vulnerable: Are resources and programs targeted to those most in need?

5) Recognition of cultural diversity: Do programs and initiatives recognize the particular challenges of minority communities? Do programs and initiatives reduce the systemic economic disparities experienced by minority communities?

6) Right to economic initiative and productive work: Do the policies promote just wages and benefits necessary to support both the worker and their family?

ACT NOW:

Click here to contact your Representative and Senators and urge them to help families still struggling from the impacts of the economic recession by including the following in The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213).

Feel free to write to us at info@txcatholic.org to let us know about your advocacy experience and about any responses you receive.

More Information:

For more information visit http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/

The Texas Catholic Conference tries to be judicious in issuing alerts and does so when contact from constituents will make a difference at a critical moment in a bill's movement through the legislature. You may direct questions to Maria Huemmer, public relations and outreach coordinator at maria@txcatholic.org.

You may contact the Texas Catholic Conference here. You may also email Maria Huemmer at maria@txcatholic.org to update your Texas Catholic Voice email subscription settings or unsubscribe.

www.TXcatholic.org

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Bishop Oscar Cantú named Apostolic Administrator for Archdiocese of San Antonio

2010-05-27T08:20:00.003-05:00

Pope Benedict XVI, through the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops, has named Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantú Apostolic Administrator for the Archdiocese of San Antonio. The appointment is effective May 26, 2010 as Archbishop José Gomez vacates his seat as Archbishop of San Antonio and assumes his position as coadjutor archbishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, CA. The announcement was made by Apostolic Nuncio, Pietro Sambi, the Vatican’s ambassador and its liaison to the Catholic Church in the United States.

While there are limitations placed on the apostolic administrator by church law, Bishop Cantú will generally have the same authority and responsibilities as an archbishop. Cantú will hold this office on an interim basis, until the new archbishop is named by the Pope, which could take six to twelve months.

Upon learning of his appointment, Bishop Cantú said, “I thank the Congregation for Bishops for the confidence they have placed in me to serve as caretaker of the ministry and mission of the Church of the Archdiocese of San Antonio. I pledge to ensure that the services to our parishes and the ministry of the Church will continue uninterrupted and that I will carry on the good work of Archbishops Gomez and Flores. I ask that you join me in prayer that a new archbishop will be named soon.”

Bishop Cantú was ordained auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio on June 2, 2008 at St. Mark the Evangelist Church, San Antonio by Archbishop Gomez. He has overseen the Office of Catholic Schools and the Office of Youth Ministry, and The Office of Education and Adult Formation, while working closely with pastors and parishes in a variety of roles, and assisting Archbishop Gomez in carrying out his many official and pastoral duties. He also served as pastor of Holy Trinity Parish in San Antonio.

Bishop Cantú, a Houston native, was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Houston‐Galveston in May of 1994. He served in a number of parishes in the Houston Metropolitan area. He also taught at the University of St. Thomas School of Theology and the University of St. Thomas at St. Mary’s Seminary.

Coadjutor Archbishop Gomez will aid Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in the governance of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and would take his place if he is absent or impeded. He will succeed the cardinal as archbishop upon his reaching retirement age on February 27, 2011.

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Summer Internship Opportunity

2010-05-26T15:28:00.000-05:00

The Texas Catholic Conference is pleased to offer a small number of unpaid internships this summer. Internship areas include graphic design, public policy, and public relations/marketing. Tasks can include:

Update Conference policy paper information
Assist in planning for 2010 Scripture Seminar, General Assembly, and Legislative Advocacy days
Gather contact information for Conference internal communication
Work on graphic and web design for the Conference web site
Attend policy strategy meeting
Market and promote Conference web site, newsletter, and social media

We will gladly work with students who are interested in receiving academic credit for the internship.

What is the standard intern work schedule?

The Texas Catholic Conference hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. An intern's specific hours will be determined after the interview process is complete, and is flexible depending on the needs of the Conference and the intern.

What are the requirements?

Ideal candidates possess a commitment to Catholic moral and social teaching, a strong grade point average as well as writing and research skills, and a commitment to work at least 12 weeks.

Who do I contact if I have questions?

If you have any questions, or to learn more about available TCC internship opportunities, please contact Maria Huemmer at 512-339-9882 or at maria@txcatholic.org.

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Mass of Reception for Coadjutor Archbishop Gomez Today

2010-05-26T09:56:00.000-05:00

The Mass of Reception for Coadjutor Archbishop Gomez will be today at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles.

You can find further information about the Mass for the Reception of at the Coadjutor web site here. Click the "Reception Mass" menu item at the top of the web site to see further information about the mass. The homilies, worship aid and other information will be posted at that location as they become available.A live video feed will be also be provided during the mass. The video feed will be viewable on that page.

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here
To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Bishops Urge Congress to Support Bill to Remedy Abortion, Conscience Flaws in Health Care Reform Law

2010-05-21T07:54:00.002-05:00

Congress should support a bipartisan bill that will remedy the abortion and conscience flaws in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), according to the Chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a May 20 letter to Congress, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston said PPACA was an important step toward ensuring access to health coverage for all Americans but was “profoundly flawed in its treatment of abortion, conscience rights, and fairness to immigrants.” He urged members to support H.R. 5111, sponsored by Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) with 91 other House members, and added, “Efforts to ensure that our health care system truly serves the life, health and conscience of all will be a legislative goal of the Catholic bishops in the months to come.”

This legislation, wrote Cardinal DiNardo, “will bring PPACA into line with policies on abortion and conscience rights that have long prevailed in other federal health programs” by ensuring PPACA funds are covered by the Hyde Amendment, along with other provisions.

Cardinal DiNardo said those who believe President Obama’s executive order addressed these concerns should support the new bill, as the legislation would codify and strengthen the order. H.R. 5111 addresses abortion and conscience issues not taken up in the executive order, and remedies its reinforcement of “problematic aspects of the Act, such as its providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortions,” he said.

With PPACA now passed into law, Cardinal DiNardo said, “Problems of abortion and conscience in the legislation can be addressed on their own merits, not greeted by false charges that any such effort must be aimed at preventing passage of the Act.” He added, “If these genuine problems are not addressed in their own right, they will be taken up and used as ammunition by those who favor repealing PPACA outright, which would eliminate the positive as well as negative aspects of the new law.”

He also reiterated the bishops’ call for “a reformed health care system that respects the life, health and conscience of all.”

Full text of the letter follows:

May 20, 2010
Dear Member of Congress:

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), our country took an important step toward ensuring access to health coverage for all Americans. However, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has explained in past letters and analyses, the final Act approved on March 22 was profoundly flawed in its treatment of abortion, conscience rights, and fairness to immigrants (see www.usccb.org/healthcare). Efforts to ensure that our health care system truly serves the life, health and conscience of all will be a legislative goal of the Catholic bishops in the months to come.

Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) with 91 other House members have made a significant contribution to this important task, by co-sponsoring bipartisan legislation to remedy PPACA’s serious problems on abortion. This legislation (H.R. 5111), based on the health care reform bill approved by the House last fall, will bring PPACA into line with policies on abortion and conscience rights that have long prevailed in other federal health programs.

H.R. 5111 will do the following:

(1) Ensure that all funds authorized or appropriated by PPACA are covered by the longstanding policy of the Hyde amendment against funding abortions except in cases of life endangerment or rape/incest. The Act currently appropriates billions of dollars in new funds for health services without limiting use of these funds for elective abortions.

(2) Prevent federal funds from subsidizing health plans that cover abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions, so PPACA will follow the policy that already governs Medicaid and Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and other programs where federal funds combine with other funds to support health coverage. Like the Stupak amendment approved by the House last fall, this will not prevent anyone from purchasing a health plan covering abortions (or separate coverage for abortion itself) with nonfederal funds.

(3) Restore the conscience provision on abortion approved by the House last November (sec. 259 of H.R. 3962), modeled on the Weldon amendment that has been part of the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills since 2004. This will ensure that federal, state and local governmental entities receiving federal funds under PPACA may not discriminate against health care providers who decline involvement in abortion. PPACA’s clause allowing states to require provision of services in some cases (sec. 1303(d)) will also be subject to this conscience clause.

(4) Close a loophole in the Act’s non-preemption clause on state laws (sec. 1303(c)(1) of PPACA), so state laws restricting abortion or protecting conscience rights will not be preempted by PPACA. Currently the Act only protects state laws related to abortion coverage or procedural requirements for abortions.

(5) Clarify PPACA’s clause on preserving other federal laws (sec. 1303(c)(2)) so laws restricting abortion or abortion coverage as well as laws on conscience rights are preserved.

Some may assume these goals are already achieved through President Obama’s executive order of March 21 on abortion funding in PPACA. To the extent that this is so, of course, it is not an argument against H.R. 5111, because it would merely codify those elements of the President’s policy. However, the executive order does not address, or claim to address, several of the problems cited above. On other issues it even reinforces problematic aspects of the Act, such as its providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortions. Of course the Act’s policy of merely “segregating funds” within such plans violates the federal abortion policy governing every other federal program, and still forces every American who purchases such plans to pay for other people’s abortions.

The executive order also claims to apply the Hyde Amendment to the funds that PPACA authorizes and appropriates for Community Health Centers, although the Act clearly does not apply the Hyde Amendment to these funds. The question here is whether the President has the legal authority to do so, given a long line of federal court decisions construing similar statutes to fund abortion services unless Congress has explicitly stated otherwise. When courts have handed down such decisions, it has sometimes taken years of litigation and debate to resolve the issue – years during which federal funds were used for hundreds of thousands of abortions a year. Given this history, we should not gamble these lives on a guess as to how a federal judge will respond to the first lawsuit seeking a federally funded abortion at a Community Health Center. This serious problem requires a statutory solution.

With the enactment of PPACA, the task of keeping the federal government out of the abortion business can now be pursued with less distraction from other issues and agendas. Problems of abortion and conscience in the legislation can be addressed on their own merits, not greeted by false charges that any such effort must be aimed at preventing passage of the Act. To the contrary: If these genuine problems are not addressed in their own right, they will be taken up and used as ammunition by those who favor repealing PPACA outright, which would eliminate the positive as well as negative aspects of the new law. In short, to support this legislation, members of Congress need not agree that these changes are essential to make the Act acceptable – though that is our conviction. They need only agree that the changes are worthwhile.

I therefore urge members of both parties who support rights of conscience and the policy of the Hyde amendment to support and co-sponsor H.R. 5111. Please help give us a reformed health care system that respects the life, health and conscience of all.

Sincerely,

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here
To go back to the TCC home page, click here

May Capitol Comments: Labor Day Reflections

2010-05-07T14:11:00.000-05:00

By: Jennifer Carr Allmon, Associate Director, Texas Catholic Conference

Happy Labor Day! No, you are not in an episode of Flash Forward and you didn't just sleep through the hot Texas summer, I'm referring to May 1, which is Labor Day in many parts of the world. In 1955, Pope Pius XII established the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker on May 1 to remind Catholics of the Christian dignity of labor. It's a good time to reflect on those whose work is physically demanding, like St. Joseph's carpentry, but it's also important to remember the dignity of work and the rights of all workers, a key theme in Catholic social teaching.

This theme reminds me of my grandfather working in an oil refinery. I think of the toil of his work on his body and of his commitment to his union. I don't usually think of health care workers. But, as our nation implements the new health care reform bill, the USCCB has reminded us that the legislation does not have adequate conscience protections for health care providers, and that many immigrant workers and their families could be left worse off as they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money. At the federal level USCCB will be vigilant in advocating for continued improvements in conscience protections, and at the state level the Texas Catholic Conference will continue to seek these protections for pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency contraception.

Then there's the work of the family. One of my co-workers at Catholic Charities in Houston was dashing out one day at 5:00 and she turned to me saying, "See you tomorrow, I'm off to my other job." I asked her what her other job was and I'll always remember the gleam in her eye as she smiled and said, "I'm a full time mom!""As we celebrate Mother's day this month we recognize that whether working outside the home or staying at home, being a mom is full-time work.

Reflecting on labor also allows us to reflect on our own work. Some of us are blessed to sit in nice air-conditioned offices all day. Do we recognize the importance of our work and treat it with dignity? In this internet era it is much easier for workers to become lazy and spend time surfing the net rather than focused on their work. This Labor Day, may we make a new commitment to treat all workers and our work with dignity and respect.

Prayer for Fidelity to Work
Glorious St. Joseph, model of all who are devoted to labor, obtain for me the grace to work conscientiously, putting the call of duty above my natural inclinations; to work with gratitude and joy, considering it an honor to employ and develop, by means of labor, the gifts received from God, disregarding difficulties and weariness; to work, above all, with purity of intention and with detachment from self, having always before my eyes death, and the account which I must render of time lost, of talents wasted, of good omitted, of vain complacency in success, so fatal to the work of God. All for Jesus, all for Mary, all after your example, patriarch Joseph. This will be my watchword in life and in death. Amen.

Click here to view the Texas Catholic Conference Capitol Comments Archive

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

USCCB Migration Chairman Joins Arizona Bishops in Decrying Anti-Immigrant Measure, Calls for Comprehensive Reform

2010-05-05T08:29:00.000-05:00

En Español

In solidarity with the Catholic bishops of Arizona, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration, issued a statement April 27, opposing the enactment and implementation of Arizona SB 1070, which criminalizes undocumented immigrants.

“This new law, although limited to the State of Arizona, could have impact throughout the nation, in terms of how members of our immigrant communities are both perceived and treated,” Bishop Wester said in the statement. “SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity.”

Bishop Wester called SB 1070 “symptomatic of the absence of federal leadership on the issue of immigration” and called for “the Administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible.”
Full text of the statement follows.

Statement of Most Reverend John C. Wester
Bishop of Salt Lake City, Utah
Chairman, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration
April 27, 2010

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I join with the Catholic bishops of Arizona in strongly opposing the enactment and implementation of Arizona SB 1070. This new law, although limited to the State of Arizona, could have impact throughout the nation, in terms of how members of our immigrant communities are both perceived and treated.

SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity. It could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens and permanent residents as well as the division of families—parents from children and husbands from wives. It certainly would lead to the rise in fear and distrust in immigrant communities, undermining the relationships between their members and law enforcement officials.

SB 1070 is symptomatic of the absence of federal leadership on the issue of immigration. For years now, the U.S. Catholic bishops have called upon Congress and two Administrations to enact meaningful and just comprehensive immigration reform.

While many of our federal elected officials have made good faith efforts to pass reform, too many still view the issue through a political lens, using it to gain political or partisan advantage. This gamesmanship must stop.

Our national leaders must educate the American public on the need for reform and show courage in making it happen. Until immigration reform is passed, other States will attempt to create and enforce immigration law, with harsh and ineffective consequences. The U.S. Catholic bishops stand in solidarity with the bishops of Arizona in opposing this draconian law. We call upon the Administration to review its impact on civil rights and liberties. We renew our call for the Administration and Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible.

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here
To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Immigration Reform Framework Needs Work, But ‘Important First Step’ In Legislative Process, Say U.S. Bishops

2010-05-05T08:26:00.001-05:00

En Español

The U.S. bishops called the introduction of a framework on immigration reform by Senate leadership, April 29, an “Important first step” in the process of achieving enactment of comprehensive reform legislation. The framework, developed by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and endorsed by Senate leadership, attempts to lay a road map for launching negotiations toward a bipartisan immigration reform bill.

The bishops’ position was outlined April 29, by Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration.

“We urge members of both parties to begin a process toward introducing and enacting bipartisan legislation which affirms the rule of law and basic human rights,” Bishop Wester said.

Bishop Wester pointed to flaws in the framework that require revision, including a controversial provision that would permit same-sex couples to receive immigration benefits equal to married couples. He also pointed out that enforcement measures in the framework should not violate basic rights, and that policies that address the root causes of migration should be addressed.
Bishop Wester urged Congress to begin discussions on the issue, with the goal of passing legislation in 2010.

“We call for a robust but civil debate. This issue can no longer wait and should not be politicized or held hostage to ideology. Our immigration system is badly broken and is in need of immediate repair,” Bishop Wester said.

The statement follows.

Statement of Most Reverend John C. Wester
Bishop of Salt Lake City
Chairman, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration
April 29, 2010
On Release of Immigration Framework in U.S. Senate

The U.S. Catholic bishops have consistently spoken out on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform and have urged its enactment. Today’s introduction of an immigration framework in the U.S. Senate is an important first step in the process of achieving the enactment of a comprehensive measure. We urge members of both parties to begin a process toward introducing and enacting bipartisan legislation which affirms the rule of law and basic human rights.

While we support the general direction of the framework, including a legalization of the undocumented and improvements to our employment and family-based immigration systems, we strongly oppose extending marriage-like immigration benefits to same-sex relationships. This proposal threatens to undermine the opportunity to bring together the Congress and the American people around a common solution to the important challenge of immigration reform.

We also have concerns about the increases in enforcement resources contained in the framework.
Over the past several years, the United States has poured billions of dollars into immigration enforcement, which has not only not solved the problem but in some cases led to the abuse of migrants. We would support the inclusion of provisions which address “push” factors that compel migrants to come to the United States, such as the lack of economic development in sending countries, so that migrants can remain in their countries and support their families in dignity.

We stand ready to work with the Administration and our federal elected officials of both parties to address these concerns and to improve the legislation in all areas. We call for a robust but civil debate. This issue can no longer wait and should not be politicized or held hostage to ideology. Our immigration system is badly broken and is in need of immediate repair.

-- To go back to the blog home page, click here To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the New Health Care Reform Law and the U.S. Bishops

2010-04-08T11:30:00.001-05:00

Thanks to the North Dakota Catholic Conference for this helpful resource!

Did the Catholic bishops of the United States support the final version of the health care reform law?
No. Although the bishops have for decades supported universal health care, they opposed the final bill because (1) it failed to preserve the status quo with regards to abortion funding, (2) it unjustly discriminated against immigrants, and (3) failed to adequately protect conscience rights.

If the bishops really wanted health care reform, why didn’t they accept the bill as “less than perfect,” but better than nothing?
Certain principles cannot be compromised, especially those concerning the protection of human life, religious liberty, and the dignity of human persons. No matter how much good a proposed law might do, it cannot be supported if it violates those fundamental principles.

Why were the bill’s abortion provisions inadequate?
In one sense, it was the absence of a particular abortion provision - one that clearly prohibited all abortion funding - that was the problem. Unlike the House bill passed last year, the Senate bill, which was the basis for the final bill, did not have such a blanket prohibition.

What are the abortion problems in the bill that passed?
Without a global ban on abortion funding, some of the funds appropriated in the bill could be used to fund abortion. For example, the new law provides additional funding for the Community Health Centers, but the law does not prohibit that money from being used for abortions.
The law provides subsidies to help purchase plans that cover abortion.

Doesn’t the Hyde Amendment apply to the new law?

No. The Hyde Amendment, which for years has prohibited federal money from paying for abortions - except in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother - and from being used to purchase insurance policies that include abortion, does not apply to the new law. The Hyde Amendment, which must be passed annually, only applies to appropriation bills with the amendment attached, particularly the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Even if the Hyde Amendment itself does apply to the new law, aren't there "Hyde-like" provisions in it?
Yes, there are some provisions like the Hyde Amendment in the bill, but they are limited in scope and do not apply to all the funding in the act. For example, school-based health clinics funded through the new law cannot provide abortion services. Also, there are some limits on the use of federal monies to directly pay for abortions. There are, however, other funds appropriated in the new law that have no abortion restrictions.
If the Community Health Centers are funded through the Department of Health and Human Services, why doesn’t the Hyde Amendment apply to them?
The Hyde Amendment only covers certain appropriations and is not triggered solely because the funds go through a particular agency.

But I heard that the Community Health Centers do not perform abortions, so what is the problem?

The Community Health Centers do not currently perform abortions with federal dollars because that funding has, until now, been subject to the Hyde Amendment.

Does the new law expressly direct the Community Health Centers to provide and pay for abortions?
No. However, the Community Health Centers must provide primary health services, including “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, ... obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians,” and “family planning services.” Courts have ruled that this language requires such facilities to provide abortion services unless Congress expressly acts to exclude such services. In this case, Congress failed to expressly exclude coverage for abortion at the Community Health Centers. The absence of the exclusion makes the centers subject to the court decisions mandating abortion services and funding.

How does the new law subsidize the purchase of insurance policies that include abortion?
Current federal law prohibits the use of federal money to directly pay for abortions and to purchase insurance policies that include abortion. For example, federal employees are not provided health coverage directly from the federal government. Like most of us, they are covered by insurance policies, the premium for which is paid, at least in part, by the employer, which in this case, is the federal government. Employees can choose from hundreds of plans. However, because federal dollars are involved, the Hyde Amendment applies and none of those plans can include abortion.

Congress failed to apply this policy to the new health care reform law. Under the new law, many Americans will have at least part of their insurance premiums paid by the federal government, though you won’t see it directly. Unlike the federal employee system, the plans you can buy can include abortion.

But I thought the money for abortion was paid for by the individual and kept separate?
To maintain the appearance that federal money is not being used to cover abortion, the law states that if an individual chooses a plan that covers abortion, the person must write two checks, one for the coverage of abortion and one for everything else. The federal government adds its own money stream to help cover the individual’s premiums. Only the “abortion” money paid by the individual is supposed to be used to pay for abortions. However, the fact remains that the policy subsidized by the federal government includes abortion and that the funding segregation does not alter the fact that money from one pocket is being transferred to another. Moreover, the “segregation” policy presents another problem in that it forces people to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Will everyone have to pay the “abortion premium?”
That depends. Any family that has to buy a subsidized plan that happens to cover abortion —for example, because its coverage or provider network are necessary to meet the family’s health needs—will be forced by the new law to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions. There are no exceptions.

What if there are no plans in my area that do not include abortion?
The law requires that there be at least one plan within a regional exchange that does not cover abortion. However, not every plan will be identical. It may be that the plan or plans within the regional exchange that do not cover abortion do not meet your family’s needs for other reasons.

Can states opt out of abortion coverage altogether?
Yes. That is some good news. In those states, none of the plans offered will cover abortion, except, depending on the state law, in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

If states can opt out of the abortion provisions, what is the problem?
Although states can opt out, we are still part of the federal system and our tax dollars will indirectly subsidize policies that cover abortion and our laws would still force people in other states to pay for another person’s abortion with the abortion premium.

Did the executive order signed by President Obama fix these problems?
No. An executive order cannot change provisions of the new law or run afoul of the interpretation that courts will give to the new law. In fact, the executive order signed by the President does not even purport to fix the law’s funding problems.

If all this is true, why does my congress member say that the new law does not fund abortions?
Look closely at what is being said and not said. The representative or senator might say that the bill does not directly “provide funding for abortion” or something to that effect. It is true that the bill does not explicitly authorize abortion funding. Nor does it mandate abortion funding. However, the absence of an explicit prohibition on all types of abortion funding combined with the court-created law on abortion opens the door for abortion funding.

Also, note that few politicians are now saying that the new law preserves the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment, in addition to preventing abortion funding, prohibits the use of federal money to subsidize plans that include abortion, something that the new law clearly permits.

Similarly, note that the politicians are avoiding the very serious problem of mandating the payment of an abortion premium by some families.

In short, pay attention to what the member of congress is not saying. Ambiguity in what they are saying could be purposely misleading or might actually reflect a lack of understanding about how a complicated piece of legislation ties in with years of sometimes complicated court cases about abortion.

If these problems exist, why did some “Catholic” organizations support the bill?
Only the organizations can answer that question. Here are a few possibilities:

Despite calling themselves “Catholic” some organizations favored health care reform under any form, including earlier proposals that made no attempt at all to prevent abortion funding; (Likewise, there were some groups claiming to be Catholic that opposed any health care reform.)

The organization lacked the expertise in abortion law to understand how the bill’s language could open up the possibility for abortion funding;

The organization, not really being grounded in church teaching, was willing to accept the possibility of expanding an evil in order to achieve what it perceived was a “greater good.”
Whatever the reason, only the bishops can speak for the Catholic Church. Also, although some organizations may have expertise in certain subjects, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops possesses unparalleled expertise in abortion law, religious liberty, and immigration policies. Finally, when it comes to ascertaining the moral aspects of a particular law or political action, Catholics should give deference to their bishops.

Why did the bishops oppose the bill’s immigration provisions?
The final bill not only denies legal immigrants access to Medicaid for five years, but also prohibits undocumented immigrants from buying insurance for their families in the exchanges using their own money. People should never be denied coverage because they can’t afford it, because of where they live or work, or because of where they come from and when they got here. The basic premise of health care reform is that people should have insurance coverage because, in our system, emergency care is not a substitute for genuine health care. Forbidding immigrants from participating in the health care system unjustly denies a basic human right.

How does the new law fail to protect conscience rights?
For one thing, as discussed above, it forces some people to pay for another person’s abortion, even when doing so violates their religious or moral beliefs. But there are other problems as well.

Although the new law prevents insurance plans from discriminating on the basis of a refusal to participate in abortion, the law does not prevent government from discriminating on that basis. In fact, the Senate expressly rejected such a provision.

Except in the case of abortion, the law does not prevent the federal government from mandating health insurers to pay for procedures that might violate the religious or moral beliefs of insurance purchasers or plan sponsors.

Because the new law gives the executive branch some authority to regulate the selection of providers by health plans, these plans may also be required to exclude providers because they have a conscientious objection to particular procedures.

While the law provides for the non-preemption of some state laws regarding abortion, there is no comparable provision with respect to state conscience laws. The failure to include such a provision places those state conscience laws at risk.

Was Congress made aware of the bishops’ concerns about these three issues (abortion, immigrants, and conscience protection) before the final vote and their position on the final bill?
Yes. The bishops made their priorities and concerns known throughout the process. As late as the day before the House vote, the bishops let every member know that if the bill could not be fixed, they should vote no on the bill.

Were the pro-life members of Congress made aware that the executive order would not fix the bill’s problems?
Although the language of the executive order was not finalized and made public until shortly before the House vote on Sunday, representatives from the USCCB expressed on Saturday that the bishops’ legal advisors did not think an executive order could legally solve the problems.

Some say that the reconciliation process would not have allowed for these type of issues to be fixed. In light of that, why did the bishops keep pushing for a fix?
When it comes to Washington, if there is a will, there is a way. Parliamentarians gave a range of opinions regarding what could or could not be accomplished through reconciliation.

If, in fact, there was no way to fix these problems through reconciliation, then Congress should have pursued another course, even if that meant starting over. Political convenience or opportunity cannot justify violating fundamental moral principles.

Did the bishops secretly want health care reform to fail?
No. Catholic teaching states that access to adequate health care is an essential good. The U.S. bishops have supported comprehensive health care reform since World War I and have never wavered from that position.

Did the bishops secretly want the bill to pass, even with the abortion funding problems?
No. Catholic teaching states that the dignity of all human life must be protected. The U.S. bishops have opposed federal funding for abortion since before Roe and have never wavered from that position.

The new law expands Medicaid coverage. Does that mean more abortions will be funded?
Medicaid is still subject to the Hyde Amendment, which means that only abortions for rape, incest, and life of the mother will be funded. The exception to this is those states that have opted include funding for all abortions with their share of the Medicaid responsibility.

Does the new law mandate school-based health clinics?
No. However, the law does provide new funding for the creation of school-based health clinics.

Would those school-based health clinics provide abortions?
No. School-based clinics was one of the few areas where Congress expressly prohibited abortion funding.

Does the new law fund sex education?
Yes and no. The new law appropriates new money for programs that teach “comprehensive” sex education that includes teaching about contraception. At the same time, the law also authorizes new money for abstinence only programs. The states, however, must come up with matching funds to access the money.

Does the new law mandate end-of-life counseling?
No. One of the earlier versions of the bill allowed Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling, but did not require it. Nevertheless, Congress removed the provision from the final bill. It remains to be seen whether end-of-life counseling will be considered an essential service that insurance companies would be required to include in order to participate in the insurance exchanges. However, even if that were to happen, it would just be a reimbursable service, not a mandate.

Where can I find out more?

Abortion Funding in the Senate Health Care Reform Bill - If you want to know the details of the final legislation on life and conscience issues, everything in this analysis about the "Senate bill" is true of the final law. Click here for a longer analysis.

Legal Analysis of Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Corresponding Executive Order regarding Abortion Funding and Conscience Protection

For up-to-date information on Health Care Reform, you can also visit the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' Health Care page or the Texas Catholic Conference web site, www.TXcatholic.org.

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Archbishop José Gomez named to be successor to Cardinal Mahony upon his retirement as Archbishop of Los Angeles

2010-04-06T08:04:00.000-05:00

The people of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the largest archdiocese in the United States, now know who will be the successor to Cardinal Roger M. Mahony upon his retirement. Archbishop José Gomez has been named the "coadjutor archbishop" of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles by Pope Benedict XVI, which carries with it the right of succession. As coadjutor archbishop, Archbishop Gomez will aid Cardinal Mahony in the governance of the diocese and would take his place if he is absent or impeded. The appointment was made public by the Vatican this morning at 5 a.m. San Antonio time.

The Vatican did not name a successor to Archbishop Gomez when making the announcement. An Archdiocesan Administrator will be named on an interim basis upon Archbishop Gomez's departure. When the new archbishop will be named is not certain, but it could take at least 6 months to a year. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles will celebrate a Mass of Welcoming at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels on May 26th at 2 p.m. There will be a Mass of thanksgiving and farewell for Archbishop Gomez in San Antonio. Details will be announced.

An archdiocesan administrator must be a priest of at least 35 years of age. While there are limitations placed on him by Church law, the administrator generally has the same responsibilities and authority as an archbishop.

Cardinal Mahony, a native Angelino, was appointed archbishop of his home diocese by Pope John Paul II in 1985. He was elevated to cardinal in 1991.

Today, as Archbishop Gomez was introduced to the Los Angeles media at a press conference, he said; "I'm very grateful to the Holy Father for giving me this opportunity to serve the Church with a mentor and leader like Cardinal Roger Mahony. I'm grateful to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, for supporting the Holy Father's confidence in me. I will try with all my strength to earn that trust."

Gomez also expressed sadness and gratitude as he prepares to leave San Antonio, "The people of San Antonio have a special goodness and grace that will always keep them close to me in my heart. In their patience and generosity, they taught me how to be a bishop. I will never forget them, and I will never stop thanking God for the privilege of having served them."

Introducing Archbishop Gomez to the people of the Archdiocese, Cardinal Mahony said: "I welcome Archbishop Gomez to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles with enthusiasm and personal excitement. The Auxiliary Bishops and I are looking forward to working closely with him over the coming months until he becomes the Archbishop early in 2011." Archbishop Gomez was appointed bishop by Pope John Paul II when he was named Auxiliary Bishop for the Archdiocese of Denver in 2002. In December of 2004, he was appointed Archbishop of San Antonio, succeeding Archbishop Patrick F. Flores and was installed archbishop on February 15, 2005 at San Fernando Cathedral.

During his time in San Antonio, Archbishop Gomez did much to help Catholics better understand Church teaching, while providing them with the support necessary to apply their faith to their daily lives. Upon his fifth anniversary as Archbishop of San Antonio, Gomez published his third pastoral letter, entitled You Will be My Witnesses, which exhorts the faithful to carry out their mission of evangelization. He established an Office for Evangelization to help Catholics embrace their responsibility to share the Gospel. He created an Office of Life, Justice and Peace, emphasizing its teaching ministry to help Catholics live their faith when confronted with important issues in today's society. He also helped to reshape the programs for couples preparing for marriage and those who were seeking to become Catholics through improvements made to the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) program.

He is known for his passionate efforts to encourage priestly vocations in the archdiocese. As a symbol of his commitment, Archbishop Patrick F. Flores Residence Hall was dedicated in 2007. In 2008, nine men were ordained to serve in the archdiocese as priests, the highest number since 1930. Today, Assumption Seminary boasts a student body of 83 men studying for the priesthood plus six additional men who are on internship. He initiated a number of important fundraising initiatives that included The Catholic Community Foundation, a foundation begun to help secure a solid financial future for ministries and parishes in the archdiocese; Hope for the Future, an ongoing campaign to assist families seeking a Catholic Education for their children; and saw the Archbishop's Appeal reach record donations.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese covers Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, encompassing more than 8,700 square miles. As of 2005, 4,349,267 Catholics live in an area that boasts a total population of 11,258,000. There are 225 Catholic elementary schools serving some 65,000 students, and 53 Catholic highs schools that educate nearly 30,000 students. According to Archdiocesan statistics there are 356 diocesan priests and 640 religious priests ministering in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

At the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Archbishop Gomez is the chair-elect for the Committee on Migrations. He acts as the current chair for the Subcommittee on the Church in Latin America. He also serves on the Committee on Doctrine and the Subcommittee on Hispanics and the Liturgy, and is the chair of the Task Force on Spanish Language Bible for the Church in America.

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Health Care Reform: USCCB Legal Analysis

2010-03-31T09:21:00.000-05:00

Legal Analysis of the Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Corresponding Executive Order Regarding Abortion Funding and Conscience Protection

The purpose of this legal memorandum is to identify the problems of the recently-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148 (“PPACA” or “the Act”), in relation to abortion funding and conscience protection, and then to assess whether (and if so, how) the corresponding Executive Order of March 24, 2010, corrects those problems. Although we wish it were otherwise, we must conclude that PPACA poses serious problems in these two areas, and that the Executive Order does not correct those problems. You can read the Conclusion below, or click here to read the entire Memorandum (PDF).

Conclusion

In sum, the Executive Order cannot and does not fix the statutory problems of direct funding of abortion at CHCs, and of funding insurance plans that cover abortions; it cannot and does not make up for the absence of conscience protections that are missing from the statute; and it does not strengthen the conscience protections that are there, though it could have in certain limited ways. Where the Order purports to fix a shortcoming of the Act in these areas, it is highly likely to be legally invalid; and where the Order is highly likely to be legally valid, it does nothing to fix those shortcomings.

Thus, the shortcomings of the Act remain, and correspondingly, the need for fixes remains. Only Congress, with the consent of the President, has the legal authority to make those fixes. Congress and the President should act promptly to do so; they should not await courts’ likely invalidation of the few provisions of the Executive Order that even purport to be fixes.

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

National Catholic Bioethics Center: A House Divided Against the Common Good

2010-03-25T09:14:00.003-05:00

By Marie T. Hilliard, Ph.D., J.C.L., R.N, NCBC Director of Bioethics and Public Policy, March 23, 2010. For more information on the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), visit their web page here: http://www.ncbcenter.org/

When the common good takes a back seat to political and corporate interests, all, especially the vulnerable, are at risk. As the largest provider of non-governmental, non-profit health care in this country, the Catholic Church, and those who work as Catholic agencies and organizations, have a special obligation to vulnerable populations, such as the unborn, those with disabilities, and those at life’s end. These populations cannot be compromised in an effort to secure “the greater good.” This is utilitarianism, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, and never equates to the common good.

It is undeniable that the enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes public funding of programs that provide abortion on demand. No accounting practices, or requiring enrollees or employees to write separate checks for abortion coverage, changes that fact. The plan would mandate that in each regional Exchange only one of the qualifying plans not include abortion. Furthermore, there is no restriction on coverage of assisted suicide costs. President Obama’s executive order cannot override federal law.

In fact, his Order merely requires adherence to the Act. Specifically, it states: “This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural , enforceable at law or in equity against the United States.” While he attempts to assure us that the seven billion new dollars for Community Health Centers will be applied consistent with the Hyde Amendment, the placement of that language within the Act does not make it subject to the cost-sharing provisions for abortion coverage. Most significantly, Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977) dictates that, without statutory provisions for the Hyde amendment within each enacted law, “essential services” are to include abortion.

Both individuals and employers will be penalized for the absence of health care coverage. There is no evidence of conscience protections for individuals or employers, who may find themselves having to write separate checks for undesired abortion procedures that happen to be in the plan of choice. There is limited evidence of conscience protections for providers, and the legislation does not provide for protection against coercion of health care providers and employers related to contraceptives or abortifacients. Here we see, most significantly, that a house divided eventually will pay the price for taking compromising positions. Yet, unfortunately, in public opposition to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ call for rejection of this legislation as it was written, the Catholic Health Association and fifty-five women religious urged its passage.

The Act will establish a Medicare Commission, which is to develop Medicare cost-saving measures. Providers to Medicare beneficiaries will be rewarded if they reduce the cost of health care services, while maintaining quality. This could foster care disincentives toward some individuals who are elderly or disabled. Broad authority is given to federal agencies to impose binding regulations. Mandates, with penalties, for failure to meet such requirements, could be imposed. The potential impact upon Catholic health care in areas where it is the sole provider, and refuses to engage in procedures destructive to life or natural human functioning, could be ominous.

Nothing is as intimately linked to fostering affordable health care as a moral approach to a global economy. Last year Pope Benedict XVI issued Caritas in Veritate (“Love in Truth”), offering the world a means to evaluate secular economic and social systems through the moral lenses of charity and truth. This new social encyclical focuses on integral human development. Economic activity is called to be people-centered: “This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good.” (N.36). Most notably, Benedict states, “When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good” (N. 28). Attacks upon life spare no generation: “To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future – indeed it is already surreptitiously present – the systematic eugenic programming of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity.” (N. 75).

One is left to ask, does this health care legislation truly advance the common good? More importantly, when members of a divided house make compromises with principle, has the common good been advanced? The answer is contained in Caritas in Veritate, within which all of the hallmarks of a sound health care reform policy are contained: integral human development; fundamental rights to life and religious freedom; charity with truth; humanistic synthesis; the common good; earth as a gift to humanity to use and protect; civilizing the economy; subsidiarity; a person-based and community oriented culture; people-centered development programs; cooperation of the human family; recognition that every migrant is a human person; and bioethics and human responsibility in human technology. As the encyclical states, in charity and truth, “when a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good.”(N. 28)

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Bishops Encourage Vigilance that Health Care Legislation Protects Conscience, does not Fund Abortion

2010-03-23T13:32:00.000-05:00

The U.S. bishops called on Congress and people in the Catholic community to make sure promises are kept that new health care legislation will not expand abortions in the United States.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, made the call March 23, moments after president Barack Obama signed the Senate version of health care reform legislation approved by the House of Representatives by a slim margin, March 21. The statement was approved unanimously by the 32-member Administrative Committee of the USCCB.

“We applaud the effort to expand health care to all,” Cardinal George said.

He noted concerns about the legislation, including that “the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other people’s abortions with their own funds.”

Cardinal George pointed to President Obama’s executive order that said “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.”

The need for such an order underscores deficiencies in the bill, Cardinal George said.

“We do not understand how an Executive order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions,” he said also.

President Obama and others claimed the bill does not expand abortion, Cardinal George noted.

“We and many others will accompany the government’s implementation of the health care reform and will work to ensure that Congress and the Administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its passage. We believe, finally, that new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required,” he said.

The statement follows.

For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for reform of our health care system so that all may have access to the care that recognizes and affirms their human dignity. Christian discipleship means, “working to ensure that all people have access to what makes them fully human and fosters their human dignity” (United States Catechism for Adults, page 454). Included among those elements is the provision of necessary and appropriate health care.

For too long, this question has gone unaddressed in our country. Often, while many had access to excellent medical treatment, millions of others including expectant mothers, struggling families or those with serious medical or physical problems were left unable to afford the care they needed. As Catholic bishops, we have expressed our support for efforts to address this national and societal shortcoming. We have spoken for the poorest and most defenseless among us. Many elements of the health care reform measure signed into law by the President address these concerns and so help to fulfill the duty that we have to each other for the common good. We are bishops, and therefore pastors and teachers. In that role, we applaud the effort to expand health care to all.

Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The statute appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Its failure to preserve the legal status quo that has regulated the government’s relation to abortion, as did the original bill adopted by the House of Representatives last November, could undermine what has been the law of our land for decades and threatens the consensus of the majority of Americans: that federal funds not be used for abortions or plans that cover abortions. Stranger still, the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other peoples’ abortions with their own funds. If this new law is intended to prevent people from being complicit in the abortions of others, it is at war with itself.

We share fully the admirable intention of President Obama expressed in his pending Executive Order, where he states, “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.” However, the fact that an Executive Order is necessary to clarify the legislation points to deficiencies in the statute itself. We do not understand how an Executive Order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions.

The statute is also profoundly flawed because it has failed to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context). As well, many immigrant workers and their families could be left worse off since they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money.

Many in Congress and the Administration, as well as individuals and groups in the Catholic community, have repeatedly insisted that there is no federal funding for abortion in this statute and that strong conscience protection has been assured. Analyses that are being published separately show this not to be the case, which is why we oppose it in its current form. We and many others will follow the government’s implementation of health care reform and will work to ensure that Congress and the Administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its passage. We believe, finally, that new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required.

As bishops, we wish to recognize the principled actions of the pro-life Members of Congress from both parties, in the House and the Senate, who have worked courageously to create legislation that respects the principles outlined above. They have often been vilified and have worked against great odds.

As bishops of the Catholic Church, we speak in the name of the Church and for the Catholic faith itself. The Catholic faith is not a partisan agenda, and we take this opportunity to recommit ourselves to working for health care which truly and fully safeguards the life, dignity, conscience and health of all, from the child in the womb to those in their last days on earth.

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

House passes health reform; effort to insert abortion language fails

2010-03-22T11:32:00.001-05:00

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien,Catholic News Service

The House of Representatives passed historic health reform legislation late March 21 but rejected a last-ditch effort to send a package of legislative fixes back to committee in order to insert language on abortion supported by the U.S. bishops. The votes were 219-212 in favor of the Senate-passed health reform bill. The vote on the reconciliation package, which concluded shortly before midnight, was 220-211.

The House votes came only after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., obtained a promise from the White House that President Barack Obama would sign an executive order stipulating that the Hyde amendment would apply to the health reform legislation. The White House has not indicated when Obama will sign the health reform bill or issue the executive order. Unconfirmed news reports said Obama would sign the bill March 23.

Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, R-Pa., said the House language was needed in the Senate measure despite the promised executive order because "an executive order does not trump a statute."

"The courts will look to the legislative statute to interpret the law," he said.

In a March 21 memo to congressional staffers, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, said that "the statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation."

"This is the unanimous view of our legal advisers and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence," he said. "Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."

The text of the draft executive order released by the White House said its goal was to "establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a long-standing federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde amendment."

"The purpose of this executive order is to establish a comprehensive, governmentwide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors -- federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers -- are aware of their responsibilities, new and old."

The U.S. bishops in their March 20 letter not only called for changes on abortion language but also urged changes that would allow new immigrants to get Medicaid and illegal immigrants to buy health insurance with their own money.

"After a year of divisive political combat, members of the House are told that they can advance health care reform only by adopting the Senate legislation as is, including these fundamental flaws," the letter said. "The House leadership is ignoring the pleas of pro-life members for essential changes in the legislation. Apparently they will not even try to address the serious problems on abortion funding, conscience protection and fair treatment of immigrants."

This is an abridged story. The original can be found here.

Copyright (c) 2010 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS · 3211 Fourth St NE · Washington DC 20017 · 202.541.3250

--

To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here

Action Alert: Health Care Reform Must Respect Unborn, Immigrant

2010-03-19T16:30:00.000-05:00

Support Health Care Reform that Respects Unborn, Immigrants, and Conscience

March 19, 2010

TAKE ACTION NOW!

Contact your US Representative today and urge him or her to support true health care reform which maintains the status quo on federal funding of abortion, allows access for all, and includes full conscience protections. Please call or write as soon as possible; Congress is expected to vote this weekend. Leer este articulo en Espanol aqui.

WHY IS THIS ACTION IMPORTANT NOW?

As long-time advocates of health care reform, the U.S. Catholic bishops continue to make the moral case that genuine health care reform must protect the life, dignity, consciences and health of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. Health care reform should provide access to affordable and quality health care for all, and not advance a pro-abortion agenda in our country. Genuine health care reform is being blocked by those who insist on reversing widely supported policies against federal funding of abortion and plans which include abortion, not by those working simply to preserve these longstanding protections.

Recently the Texas Bishops, along with the US Bishops and the USCCB Committee on Migration, have issued letters and statements on health care reform. See the links below for more information:

-Texas Bishops: Do Not Support Current Health Care Reform Bill

-Texas Bishops Reiterate Support of USCCB in Opposing Senate Health Care Bill

-Head of Immigration Committee, Hispanic Bishops, Urge Congress to include Immigrants on Health Care Reform

-President of U.S. Bishops: Cost is too High, Loss is too Great, for Health Care Bill not to be Revised

You can visit www.USCCB.org/HealthCare for more information.

Please act by March 21, 2009

ACT NOW:

To find out who Congressperson is, click here and insert your address. We have a Legislator Contact form on our website here that you can download and print to have this information for later use.Below is a sample message for your Representative.

Sample Message to your Representative:

"I am pleased that the House health care bill maintains the longstanding policy against federal funding of abortion. On the other hand, the provisions on abortion funding in the current un-amended Senate health care bill are seriously deficient and unacceptable. I urge you to work to uphold essential provisions against abortion funding, to include full conscience protection and to ensure that health care is accessible and affordable for all, including our immigrant brothers and sisters. I urge you to oppose any bill unless and until these criteria are met. If you have any questions on the position of the Bishops of Texas with regard to this bill, feel free to contact the Texas Catholic Conference at 512-339-9882. Thank you for your time."

Feel free to write to us at info@txcatholic.org to let us know about your calling experience and about any responses you receive.

More Information:

For more information visit www.USCCB.org/healthcare

www.TXcatholic.org

--
To go back to the blog home page, click here

To go back to the TCC home page, click here