HeadlineBistro

It's All Relative

In a recent article in Il Foglio, Vatican expert Paolo Rodari examined similarities between the soon-to-be-beatified Cardinal John Henry Newman and Pope Benedict XVI.  Separated by their homeland, their upbringing, and more than a century, both men nevertheless fought against a similar enemy.  While there are certainly differences between the two, at least “one major element unites their thought,” says Rodari – “their aversion to a relativistic society.”

Upon his appointment as cardinal in 1879, Cardinal Newman said, “Religious liberalism is the doctrine according to which there doesn’t exist any positive truth in the religious field, but that any creed is as good as any other; and this is the doctrine that, day after day, is acquiring consistency and vigor.”

Speaking more than a century later upon his election as pope in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI echoed Cardinal Newman’s concern and spoke out against the “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

Almost a decade earlier, then-Cardinal Ratzinger observed that the rush to relativism is particularly prevalent in democratic countries.  There’s something inherently democratic about relativism that makes it especially appealing and sensible, he argued: “In the area of politics, this concept is considerably right.  There is no one correct political opinion.  What is relative – the building up of liberally ordained coexistence between people – cannot be something absolute.

However, there are limits to the utility and appropriateness of democratic relativism:

…with total relativism everything in the political area cannot be achieved either.  There are injustices that will never turn into just things (such as, for example, killing an innocent person, denying an individual or groups the right to their dignity or to life corresponding to that dignity) while, on the other hand, there are just things that can never be unjust.  Therefore, although a certain right to relativism in the social and political area should not be denied, the problem is raised at the moment of setting its limits. 

So what about Americans?  Few would argue that we’re not influenced by the dictatorship of relativism.  And, following Pope Benedict XVI’s logic, we’re in even more danger given our passion for democracy.  Are we really relativists?  According to our polling released early this year, we are – or at least we claim to be. 
In fact, 56 percent of Americans agreed with the statement, “morals are relative; that is, there is no definite right and wrong for everybody.”  Looking at the youngest generation, Millennials – ages 18-29 – appeared to be even more relativistic.  64 percent agreed that morals were relative. 

Even Catholics aren’t immune to the “dictatorship of relativism.”  According to our polling, they’re even more likely to identify as relativists.  63 percent of American Catholics say they’re relative, as do an astounding 82 percent of Catholic Millennials. 

Ironically, however, we Americans are pretty lack-luster relativists.  When we asked Americans whether a series of 16 actions were “morally acceptable,” “morally wrong,” or “not a moral issue,” a majority of Americans made a moral judgment for every single issue.  Not once did a majority of Americans – self-identified relativists or not – declare that a particular action was not a moral issue.

On six issues (cheating, marital infidelity, business decision motivated by greed, abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage), less than 1 in 4 Americans acted as good relativists should.  In fact, for 14 of the 16 actions, a majority of at least 60 percent said the action was either “morally acceptable,” or “morally wrong.”  There were only two issues for which a near majority of Americans withheld judgment: Economic development at the expense of the environment (43 percent), and gambling (48 percent).

Even Millennials made strong moral judgments.  Three-quarters of them made a judgment on euthanasia (52 percent saying it was wrong, and 23 percent believing it’s acceptable), and 78 percent made a judgment on abortion (20 percent believe it’s morally acceptable, while 58 percent say it’s wrong).

So while relativism is undoubtedly attractive and pervasive in our modern culture, its impact on individuals is perhaps ironically – even humorously – relative.  That is not to say that it has had no impact on individuals, or that its pervasive impact on the culture is meaningless.  The “dictatorship of relativism” is exactly that, and as such – like all dictatorships – it is sinister.  And we can only expect that as the dictatorship extends itself even further into all corners of American and Western culture, its foot soldiers will fall in line and become true believers. 

Thankfully, as Paolo Rodari reminds us, we have the inspiration and guidance of Cardinal Newman, Pope Benedict XVI, and those who will follow in their footsteps, who, like them, will have a deep “aversion to relativism,” and will work to overthrow its dictatorship once and for all. 

-Matthew St. John

More news from Arizona

Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070, is set to go into effect on Thursday, July 29 – but to what extent?

On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked the most contested parts of the law, temporarily putting them on hold until the state of Arizona likely appeals the ruling. This means that while minor changes to Arizona’s current immigration statutes will be updated tomorrow morning, the big issues in SB 1070 – requiring immigrants to have their papers on them at all times and allowing police to make warrantless arrests of a person they have “probable cause” to believe is in the U.S. illegally, for instance – will not.

Two other portions of the law that have been blocked is the section that criminalizes illegal immigrants soliciting, applying for or performing work, as well as the requirement that police make “a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.”

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," said Bolton in her decision.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law last April, told the AP that Wednesday’s ruling was “a temporary bump in the road” and that the state will appeal.

“The bottom line is we’ve known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds,” Brewer said. “And they haven’t done their job, so we were going to help them do that.”

Arizona’s attorney general, Democrat Terry Goddard and Brewer’s challenger in this fall’s race for governor, disagreed.

“Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost,” said Goddard, who last week was trailing Brewer by nearly 20 percentage points, according to a poll from Rasmussen.

Meanwhile, the Catholic bishops of Arizona issued a joint statement commending the ruling and reiterating their concern for immigrants and their families, as well the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

“We know that in practically every parish there are families that have been living with the fear and anxiety generated by SB 1070 that they might be torn apart,” the bishops said. “Our hearts go out to these families. We know them to be good people who work hard and who contribute to the economy and to the quality of life of their communities.”

Finally, they laid out some foundational points to their argument for reform, saying:

• Illegal immigration is bad for our nation. It is not good for us to not know who is entering our country.

• Our international borders need to be secured and we need to be protected from drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, human trafficking and violence.

• There must be a process – but not amnesty – for persons who have entered our country illegally to pursue legal status. This process must have proportionate consequences for the act of illegal entry, consequences that would include fines, learning English, and going to the “back of the line” to seek citizenship.

• Our nation needs a program that would allow needed workers to enter the country legally. This program must include protection of worker rights.

The tragic consequences of the failure of our nation’s political leadership to enact reform of our immigration system have included the deaths of thousands of people.

Migrants – women, men, children in desperate circumstances – have died trying to enter our country. U.S. citizens have died because of crimes committed by drug smugglers, people smugglers and weapons smugglers.

We pray for those who have died and for their grieving families.

And we pray that our senators and representatives will put aside their partisan divisions and go to work immediately to fix the broken immigration system.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

The emergence of the "caretaker industry": What does it mean for Catholics?

According to a recent article by Ronald Dworkin of the Hudson Institution in Washington, D.C., we are a nation habitually, and perpetually, on the couch – not only in the sense of loafing in the comfortable confines of our living rooms, but in the psychiatrist’s office, as well.

Today in America, Dworkin wrote, we employ the services of “77,000 clinical psychologists, 192,000 clinical social workers, 105,000 mental health counselors, 50,000 marriage and family therapists, 17,000 nurse psychotherapists, and 30,000 life coaches,” not including “400,000 nonclinical social workers and 220,000 substance abuse counselors.” Over the last 60 years, this represents a 100 fold increase in the amount of such professional caregivers. It’s a startling trend in America, but the most interesting fact is Dworkin’s answer for why this is the case.

Critically, this does not mean that rates of mental problems are necessarily higher or there is an epidemic of disorders or social breakdown. Nor is it indicative of a rash of narcissism or overly self-conscious “neurotics,” according to Dworkin.

“On the contrary, they are average people with conventional values who face real-life problems but have no one to talk to,” he said, adding that “fully a third of the American population has undergone some form of psychotherapy.”

Dworkin goes on to describe the rise of what he calls America’s “caring industry” and, hand in hand, Americans’ increasing and pervading sense of loneliness. He notes that most cases today are not handled as long term intense psychoanalyses but instead short term self-help sessions. The highest rates, incidentally, are for divorced women.

“Today’s caring professionals offer the same service to lonely, unhappy people that friends and relatives once did,” Dworkin explains. “They do so because so many Americans are lonely and unhappy. … People want to be able to go about their daily lives with the knowledge that someone is there for them.”

Though Dworkin’s analysis comes from a purely secular, sociological perspective, these statistics should speak to us particularly as Catholics. On the one hand, it is positive that such a huge network of support exists for people who feel they need them.

The crux of the problem, though – that people are turning to the therapist’s couch in such startling numbers, so many of them feeling they lack the listening ear of a friend or relative – is what challenges us. Are we indeed, as Cain tried to deny, our brother’s keeper? Are we aware of the needs of those around us, who may be suffering silently in loneliness?

In early 2009, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “Human hearts are yearning for a world where love endures, where gifts are shared, where unity is built, where freedom finds meaning in truth, and where identify is found in respectful communion.”

This was part of his message for the World Day of Communications, and he went on to caution against the temptation to seek fulfillment -- the answer to our hearts’ desire for real relationships – in the media of today, especially online. Yet the same warning could be said of short term fixes to deeper emotional problems, such as the self-help sessions that Dworkin describes.

Perhaps the long term solution, then, is two-fold: First, a greater awareness and willingness on all our parts to give those close to us that simple, reassuring knowledge that someone is there for them. From what Dworkin suggests, the people seeking help in droves from psychologists, therapists and life coaches aren’t necessarily those who are completely alone in the world – but they certainly felt that way, with their social and familial networks either broken or out of touch.

Second, in the age of self-help, therapy and medication – Dworkin says that 15 percent of the population is on psychoactive drugs at any given time – one must wonder what kind of substantive activities are equally promoted to those seeking some semblance of an authentic human relationship. For example, could feelings of loneliness and low self-esteem be addressed, at least in part, through volunteering in our community, visiting our relatives or serving the needy? And what of the role of faith?

Surely, this is not to dismiss the fact that some people truly need this type of therapy and social services. Yet Dworkin’s study highlights a void that must be filled by something that will endure: God and the personal and familial relationships that define who we are.

The worth of a life in Great Britain

Two tiny miracles arrived in Great Britain this summer, extremely premature twins who have become the youngest to survive after birth in the UK. What makes these siblings’ story even more significant, though, is that one of them – Amelia Hope Burden, born at 23 weeks and two days and weighing in at a mere 1 lb 2 oz – was born five days before British doctors are legally obligated to try to save the life of a premature infant. Likewise, Amelia Hope’s survival could challenge current British abortion law, which is based on infants’ viability outside the womb and restricts almost all abortions to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

“Doctors said she had just a 10 percent chance of survival. And we never thought she’d pull through,” said Amanda Staplehurst, mother of Amelia Hope and Arthur Burden, who was born ten days after his twin sister. “Seeing Amelia Hope whisked away by medical staff was incredibly traumatic. After all, she was born before the abortion limit and appeared to be dead. But thank goodness, despite this, doctors decided to revive her.”

Indeed, last fall Britain’s Telegraph reported the tragic story of baby Jayden Capewell, who was born 21 weeks and five days into his mother’s pregnancy and reportedly refused care by doctors at the Norfolk hospital.

From the article:

Miss Capewell says her increasingly desperate pleas to assist her baby were met with a brusque response from doctors, who said she should consider the labour as a miscarriage, rather than a birth.

After asking doctors to consider his human right to life, she claims she was told: "He hasn't got a human right, he is a foetus".

In the early hours of the morning, Jayden was born. To his mother's astonishment, he stretched out his arms and legs.

Nevertheless, her pleas for a cot to be found for her son in the special care baby unit were rejected.
Two hours later, Miss Capewell's son died.

According to the Telegraph, guidelines from Britain’s National Health Services say that due to their low chance of survival, babies born before 23 weeks should not be given medical interventions that could cause suffering. In 2008, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine likewise advised that intensive care rarely be given to babies born before 23 weeks gestation, and never before 22 weeks.

In other words, Jayden missed the 22-week cutoff date by a mere two days.

“When I went into labour I was told he would be born dead, disabled and his skin would most likely be peeling off, in actual fact he was perfect,” wrote Jayden’s mother, Sarah Capewell, on the Justice for Jayden website. Capewell has been leading a campaign to change national legislation on the treatment of premature infants. “He was born alive, he was responsive and lived without help for nearly 2 hours.”

Especially to Americans, the thought of a vulnerable infant’s life being coldly dismissed behind the bureaucracy of nationalized medical directives is chilling – as is the fact that young Amelia Hope could have been just as easily disregarded by her doctors under British law. Yet what’s also of note is how the current British abortion law – whose supporters defend the 24-week limit on the basis of viability – fails to account for the number of premature infants recorded to have survived after birth at an even earlier stage of pregnancy.

The Telegraph article on Jayden Capewell, for example, even quoted a doctor who supported the national guidelines on when infant care should be provided but admitted she had seen several successful births at 22 weeks gestation.  

Just last month – around the same time Amelia Hope was born – the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) issued a review stating that unborn babies feel no pain in the womb before 24 weeks – an opinion meant to shape Britain’s national discussion on lowering the legal limit for abortions.

In the review’s information section for women and parents, it states definitively that “the fetus/baby” cannot feel pain during an abortion before 24 weeks. In response to the question, “Will the process hurt the baby?” the RCOG answers, “No. To be hurt, you need to feel pain.” While the review takes a less certain stand on whether unborn babies feel pain after 24 weeks, it still recommends that pain relief not be administered to the unborn child after 24 weeks during fetal biopsies, prenatal diagnostic tests or even late-term abortions – a gruesome practice in itself.

The U.S.-based National Right to Life Committee blasted the report as a “stunning lack of scholarship,” pointed out that it ignored a contradicting study from 2007, and observed that its authors are “predominantly abortion advocates and at least one abortionist.” One thing is clear – the RCOG review goes out of its way to disconnect the unborn child from any notion of humanity, even stating outright the “potential pitfalls” of observing similarities between it and an infant born prematurely at the same gestational age.

Yet amid Britain’s figurative “slippery slope” of when an unborn child’s life ought to be protected – if born prematurely, after 24 weeks gestation? If still unborn, after potential viability outside the womb? If less than 24 weeks, only if it can feel pain? – many Britons themselves are open to shortening their nation’s window for legal abortions.

Last week, an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that by a nine percentage point margin, a plurality of British people – 46 percent – believe the time limit on abortion should be reduced to less than 24 weeks, and that only four percent think it should be extended to later in a woman’s pregnancy.

Perhaps the heartening story of Amanda Staplehurst’s little twins will change more minds. One has the feeling, though, that she doesn’t need medical directives or an RCOG review to convince her of the worth of her children.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

Rethinking the Secularization of Europe

It has been talked about for years and is now oftentimes referred to as a hardened truth: Europe is post-Christian and moving quickly toward full secularization.

Yet while the continuing liberalization of laws governing abortion, divorce and same-sex marriage, coupled with the drive to reduce the influence of religion to the private sphere is an ongoing phenomenon throughout the continent, there are still signs that the last vestiges of Christianity will not disappear without a fight. Indeed, the ruling against the display of crucifixes in Italian schools has triggered widespread opposition from more than half of the nations making up the European Union.

In an enlightening interview posted on Zenit, Jesus Colina spoke with Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Center for Law and Justice, a Strasbourg-based NGO that defends freedom of worship and thought. Puppinck offered some fascinating analysis on the crucifix case and the significance of the growing opposition to this attempt to strip classrooms of more than 2,000 years of Christian culture and tradition.

First a brief backgrounder: Eight years ago, an Italian citizen of Finnish origin named Soile Lautsi complained about crucifixes in the classrooms of her two sons. Lautsi launched a case in the Italian courts to have the crucifixes removed. After the school refused to take down the crucifixes, Lautsi took her case to the European Court of Human Rights. That court issued a ruling last November supporting the removal of the crucifixes, stating that they “could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion.” Italy has appealed that ruling, and a decision is expected by the end of the year. 

During the trial at the European Court of Human Rights, ten nations (Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Romania, Russia and San Marino) took part as third parties supporting Italy’s position that crucifixes should be allowed. Since then ten more European countries have come forward, insisting that national religious traditions should be protected.

In the interview, Puppinck argued that the support for religious symbols in public is evidence of a significant victory against rampant secularization. He said:

In this way, with Italy, now almost half the Member States of the Council of Europe (21 out of 47) have publicly opposed this attempt of forced secularization of schools and have affirmed the social legitimacy of Christianity in European society. Behind the real arguments of defense of identity, of culture and of the national Christian tradition, these states have affirmed and defended publicly their attachment to Christ himself; they have reminded that it is in conformity with the common good that Christ be present and honored in society.

Puppinck also pointed that while the lawsuit and court ruling reveal a cultural divide in the continent, the coalition that has joined with Italy – made up of almost the entirety of Central and Eastern Europe – proves that the division can be overcome. Especially significant, Puppinck said, is the support given to Italy by countries of Orthodox tradition, such as Greece and Russia, “regardless of the political orientation of the moment.”

Puppinck said that this sign of solidarity between Catholic and Orthodox nations is largely due to the determination of Moscow’s Patriarch Kirill, who has pledged himself to “the unity of the Christian Churches against the advance of secularism,” as a top official in the Russian Orthodox Church described the patriarch’s ecumenical strategy.

Pope John Paul II long dreamed of fusing the “two lungs” of the Christian tradition and healing the divide with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI has crusaded against efforts to strip Europe of its Christian moral and cultural foundations. In a somewhat ironic twist, perhaps the misguided efforts to rid Italian classroom of crucifixes will move us one step closer to achieving both of those dreams.

-- David Naglieri

Positive news in the Church's fight against AIDS

The 18th International AIDS Conference in Vienna is still ongoing, but it has already proved at least partially successful in refocusing people on what works in fighting AIDS. 

One of the most heartening stories from Vienna this week was a new report from the U.N. that confirmed studies showing a decrease in HIV/AIDS infection rates among African youth in the continent’s most affected countries who practiced behavioral changes, such as abstinence or having fewer sexual partners.

An article from Catholic News Service quotes Msgr. Robert Vitillo, special adviser to Caritas International on HIV and AIDS, who said that despite the international community’s preferred “strategy of promoting condoms,” the U.N. report shows an openness to accept that promoting changes in behavior can be a successful strategy in combating the rampant disease.

Of course, when Pope Benedict XVI suggested a strategy along similar lines during his trip to Africa last year, he was excoriated by politicians and the media around the world.

For Msgr. Vitillo, such prejudice is not uncommon, but fortunately, neither does it dominate all discussion. Relating his involvement in a UN AIDS group that met to create the framework for a strategy on HIV prevention, Msgr. Vitillo recalled, “There were some protests that they’d invited someone from the Catholic Church, especially me, a priest. But there were others in the group who said: ‘No, the Catholic Church has excellent prevention programs and a valid approach to prevention.’”

There has long been this tug-of-war between secular and religious allies in the war against AIDS. Unlike many international organizations, the Church has maintained that a focus on monogamy and a culture of chastity will do more to stem the spread of the epidemic than pouring condoms into the continent. The work of scientists such as Harvard’s Edward Green has backed up the Church’s claim, yet the UN study is noteworthy as it comes directly from the heart of the international community.

In his latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict stressed that “moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand.” Surely this insight applies to the heartbreaking situation of the HIV/AIDS epidemic today. For the international community to place all its hope in a technical fix like condoms – more of a band-aid solution than a permanent answer – without considering the moral root of the problem is to set up for defeat the very people it’s trying to help.
As Matthew Hanley, coauthor of Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West,wrote last December 1 on World AIDS Day: 

At a deeper level, what all these risk reduction measures have in common is a deflating absence of hope. And hope for the future is what is needed most -- hope to be healed of past traumas; hope to live free of disease, discord and inner turmoil.
Fostering real hope is difficult, because it means first recognizing and then aspiring to a preferable alternate behaviour, a standard even.  But this is precisely what our culture tends to deny, relativise, or deride. This is why risk reduction, harm reduction and safe sex are the only politically safe ways to engage the issue. To foster hope, the public health establishment needs to be courageous and break free from the bonds of culture and from the deadening despair of relativism.
… I once heard a colleague in Africa put it like this: "Ideals are like the stars. We may not reach them, but we set our course by them." The motto of risk reduction, however, is: "No need to shoot for the stars. Stay safely in the abyss." The virtually exclusive focus on risk reduction measures amounts to the quiet institutionalisation of hopelessness.

In this respect, the Church’s place as an active partner to the U.N. and other international organizations involved in relief work fills an incredible void. The recent report from the U.N. is evidence. As Msgr. Vitillo’s story above related, people have their prejudices, yet the truth of the Church’s position is making a difference every day.

The Executive Order Revisited

Earlier this year and throughout the fall, the issue of federally funded abortions made daily headlines as the entire prospect of health care reform teetered over whether the legislation would ban abortion coverage from government-funded health plans. That issue has reappeared this summer, most recently in the form of some states’ plans for high-risk insurance pools, but also – perhaps unexpectedly – in Senate legislation for next year’s defense spending.

Last week, pro-life groups called to attention three states whose federally funded insurance pools for people with pre-existing conditions included little to no restrictions on abortion coverage. This of course contradicted the executive order President Obama signed earlier this year at the pressure of pro-life Democrats, which banned government funds from helping cover elective abortions under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Under the new health care plan, each state will soon have its own Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) offering temporary health coverage to those who would not otherwise qualify for coverage due to a pre-existing condition.  As such, states have begun creating their own PCIP or allowing the Department of Health and Human Services to directly run their program. Each state is set to receive full federal funding, with $5 billion dollars having been set aside for this purpose – funding that, under the executive order, would not be allowed to go toward abortion coverage.

Last month Pennsylvania released the details of its PCIP, stating that the federal government had approved the state’s $160 million high-risk insurance plan. However, the National Right to Life Committee examined the policy closely and found that the program would in fact include abortion coverage in every circumstance except sex-selection – making Pennsylvania one of at least three states whose PCIPs included little to no restrictions on the federal funding of abortions (New Mexico and Maryland also emerged as states that failed to incorporate the executive order on abortion in their plans).

Following a week of press inquiries and public criticisms, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement that the agency will act to exclude abortion from the PCIP 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 created under the new health care reform act:

“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,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “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.”

He continued, “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.”

In related news, pro-life advocates in Washington are gearing up for yet another congressional fight, this time over access to abortion on military bases.

Back in May, Sen. Roland Burris proposed an amendment to the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act permitting abortions on all domestic and overseas military facilities – a reversal of current military and government policy. The measure was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee by a vote of 15-2, removing all previous restrictions and allowing servicewomen to receive abortions in military hospitals so long as they pay for the procedure themselves.

Defenders of the Burris amendment argue that the new law would not entail direct government funding of abortion, nor would it force military doctors to perform the procedure.

However, Rep. Chris Smith says these claims are dubious.

“When we hire abortionists, when we provide operation rooms and recovery rooms and nurses, all of whom would participate in the killing of that child and wounding of that mother by the way of abortion, that is facilitation, that is public funding,” Smith said.

This month, 180 congressmen signed a letter urging House and Senate leaders to eliminate the abortion component of the bill. The letter warns:

If the Burris Amendment were enacted not only would taxpayer funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources could also be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed.

Cardinal DiNardo has also sent a letter to all U.S. senators outlining the U.S. bishops’ opposition to the Burris amendment, calling the government’s “no abortion funding” claim disingenuous.

“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 asked.

With last week’s victory as a source of encouragement, let us hope that the continued efforts of the pro-life community affect the final vote on this amendment.

A both/and approach to immigration?

Wednesday at the U.S. Capitol brought with it a scene you don’t see every day in the halls of Congress: a House subcommittee debating religion’s role in the issue of immigration reform.

Among those brought in to testify was Tucson’s Bishop Gerald Kicanas, Vice-President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who in addition to written testimony stressed to the representatives the Church’s position on both enforcing the rule of law and respecting the human dignity of the immigrant.

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wholeheartedly agrees that the rule of law is paramount and that those who break the law should be held accountable,” he said. “As our testimony points out, comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the line. We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense.”

As a Church leader whose diocese runs along the whole of the Arizona-Mexico border, Bishop Kicanas is keenly aware of the political, economic and – above all – humanitarian implications of immigration reform. Thousands of immigrants, he said, have died in their attempt to cross the desert, with the number of deaths in 2009 reaching its highest level in three years despite enforcement measures by Border Patrol teams.

“The current immigration system, which can lead to family separation, suffering, and even death, is morally unacceptable and must be reformed,” he said in his testimony, which among other elements stressed the need for family unity and workers’ protections, benefits and path to residency.

The American consensus is clearly against lawbreaking by illegal immigrants, as polling on Arizona’s recent immigration law shows. (74% of the nation thinks the Arizona law is either “about right” or “doesn’t go far enough,” according to a CBS News poll released this week). Overwhelmingly, Americans also are in agreement that the current immigration system is broken and needs to be overhauled.

The CNN story on the hearing included a quote from one congresswoman who said of opposing camps on immigration, “We are so far apart philosophically” that middle ground seems hard to find.

And yet the Church’s approach to the issue of immigration reform – that it is possible, and morally necessary, to uphold the nation’s rule of law and security as well as treat immigrants justly – strives to take that via media approach. Such a common sense position is a breath of fresh air in the midst of what Bishop Kicanas described as the “partisan paralysis” that otherwise marks the country’s back and forth debate. With immigration reform becoming an increasingly important topic in both state and federal politics – and the American people clamoring for change – one hopes that proposal will prevail.

Elizabeth Hansen, Headline Bistro editor

Campus Controversy- Round Two

School may be out for the summer, but controversies have been boiling over in our nation’s campuses.  A few weeks ago we reported on the Supreme Court’s decision against the Christian Legal Society at Hastings Law School, in which the Court ruled that the school’s denial of recognition to the group did not violate free speech or free association – a decision seen by critics as a blow to religious freedom in academic settings.

Then late last week came news of the dismissal of Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor of religion at the University of Illinois, for a lecture and email on Catholic morality that a complaining student has described as “hate speech.”

Professor Howell had been a member of the Department of Religion for nine years, teaching Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought.  After delivering a lecture on the relationship between natural law and Catholicism, Howell sent an e-mail to his students further explaining natural law theory and clarifying the differences between natural law and other systems designed to determine morality in human action.  In an effort to apply the different theories, Howell chose as an example the morality of homosexual acts.

Before he began, Howell was clear to point out that “to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person.  A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.”  He went on to say, “All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as thinking adult.  That implies questioning what you have heard around you.” 

Nevertheless, his lecture and subsequent e-mail caused a controversy, despite the fact that this wasn’t the first time he used this example and that previously, students who disagreed with Howell’s presentation of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality were respectful of his views. A complaint came a week later in an e-mail to the head of the Department of Religion, asserting that Howell’s statements were “hate speech” and should not have a place at the University of Illinois.  The e-mail’s author was not a student of Professor Howell’s, but rather a friend of a student who wished to remain anonymous.

In short order, the university determined that “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”   Despite his protests, and even his offer to remove all lectures on homosexuality from his course, Howell was dismissed from the university.

Since the incident first made news last week, Howell has teamed up with the Alliance Defense Fund – which sent a stern letter threatening legal action to the University – and the University of Illinois has announced a thorough review of the firing, expecting to issue its findings by the beginning of the fall semester. 

The Alliance Defense Fund argues that “the University has violated [Dr. Howell’s] clearly established right to free speech.” 

In response to the firing, the president of the University of Illinois has reportedly acknowledged that “academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions.  It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.”

But by firing Howell, the university runs the risk of limiting its students’ exposure to those “alternative viewpoints,” not by what it teaches, but by what it doesn’t teach.  The school justified its decision by pointing out that Howell had violated its “standards of inclusivity.” Does the Catholic faith not fall under that umbrella? So long as Howell was not requiring his students to accept Catholic doctrine in order to pass the course – and no one is arguing that he was – then, as the ADF and other critics point out, there’s nothing inappropriate about factually representing the Church’s position in a course about the Church’s position.
“In relieving Dr. Howell of his teaching responsibilities, the University is firing him for teaching Catholic doctrine in a class about Catholic doctrine,” said Travis Barham, litigation staff counsel for the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. 

By announcing its intention to thoroughly review the matter, the university has the opportunity to reflect on the matter and possibly even restore Howell in his teaching position for which, ironically, he was recognized in 2008 and 2009 by students as an excellent teacher.  Hopefully, those same students and their professor will receive a fair, honest and just decision guided by academic freedom and integrity.

-Matthew St. John 

Keeping your community, and your computer, a 'safe neighborhood' for kids

The National Catholic Register featured a story on Friday on a recent legislative victory against the adult entertainment industry in Missouri. The Missouri Catholic bishops joined with lawmakers in applauding the passage of bill that strictly limited “the serving of alcohol, total nudity, and physical contact between employees and the customers they serve” at sex clubs. The bishops were a major player in pushing legislators to act to curtail the spread of the industry in Missouri.

While many argue for the First Amendment rights of such establishments, court precedent has consistently held the First Amendment to chiefly protect unpopular political speech, not any and all content. There is also demonstrable state interest in stemming the spread of the porn industry in all its forms. From the Register: 

“Those who think that sexually oriented businesses are victimless enterprises are very much mistaken,” said Steve Wagner, a Washington, D.C., consultant who worked on sex-trafficking issues in the Department of Health and Human Services during the George W. Bush administration. “They are all too often fronts for human trafficking, and in the U.S., this is mostly about the commercial exploitation of children — American kids. Control of this business is critical.”

Unfortunately, victories against sex commerce must be won piecemeal. In Connecticut, for example, individual towns are left to battle in the courts for years on end to prevent sex shops from opening up in their neighborhoods, often right next to people’s homes. VIP (Very Intimate Pleasures) stores, specializing in pornographic video and sex paraphernalia, have been spreading in the state despite the best efforts of political leaders and concerned citizens. In the town of Berlin, a VIP purchased a building on a major thoroughfare in 2006. 

The town banned the store via a sexually oriented business ordinance, which led to a string of court battles. Appeals were ongoing until the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd District finally upheld the ordinance in January 2010.

While the legal fight was unfolding, VIP, which retained rights to the land, parked a mobile billboard truck in the parking lot splashed with the phrase “Relax It’s Just Sex…We’re All Doing It,” along with suggestive imagery and a list of items for sale.

A local Berlin resident whose home was a stone’s throw from the proposed site of the store started her own blog in protest. Her final entry featured a picture of her 7-year-old daughter seated on the couch, with the garish truck clearly visible outside their living room window. One can only imagine what type of clientele the store would have attracted to the doorstep of her family.

Though Berlin was a victory, other less residential portions of the same road are infested with strip joints, and other VIP stores have popped up in towns throughout the state. What are as depressing as the prevalence of such establishments are the hurdles municipalities must navigate simply to rid their town of such negative influences.

And of course, even if they are not in your town, if you have a computer they may be in your house. The internet has made pornography dangerously accessible, especially for the web-savvy youth of today.

The National Review has a thought provoking article on how innovative software designers such as Apple are creating products that have porn-free networks (though a person who goes out of his way can still bypass network barriers to access pornographic images).

Acknowledging that parents can’t monitor their children at each and every moment they are online, the article by Jonah Goldberg and Nick Schulz also proposes a novel idea: In the same way there are drug-free and gun-free zones, there could be a kid safe domain on the internet, “.kids”, featuring only content appropriate for younger children. As the article notes: 

"Merely creating a new domain wouldn’t create a neighborhood or safe zone for kids. But it would give the private sector the wherewithal to help parents, without handing jurisdiction of content over to the government or requiring parents to rely on notoriously unreliable filters. Programming a browser to recognize only a ".kids" address would be simple. Devices and software could be designed to make it impossible for kids to wander into bad neighborhoods."

As to the workability of such a scheme, it remains to be seen. But it may be the right direction and a way to get all major websites involved in moral decision-making regarding their content choices, as well as one more tool for parents who are pulling double duty to protect their kids these days.

- Paul Ciarcia