HeadlineBistro

God and Caesar in the West

What is government’s relationship with organized religion? Is religious faith viewed as a pillar of civic engagement and sound government, or is it viewed as an adversary to the state? This in part was the dichotomy Archbishop Charles Chaput spoke of in a speech in Slovakia August 24.  Addressing the first session of the 15th Symposium for the Canon Law Association of Slovakia, Archbishop Chaput spoke at length on the issue of secularism – not only in Eastern Europe, but in the United States as well, and the animosity towards religion that lies behind it. 

The theme of religion’s place in public life is one the archbishop has written and spoken extensively about, and his recent speech reminds us that the issue remains one of the central challenges for Christianity in the modern world. He argues that if we do not do something about the spread of the philosophy of secularization and the move towards a “post Christian” world, it will destroy our culture and society: 

We can no longer afford to treat the debate over secularization – which really means cauterizing Christianity out of our cultural memory – as if it’s a problem for Church professionals.  The emergence of a “new Europe” and a “next America” rooted in something other than the real facts of our Christian-shaped history will have damaging consequences for every serious believer.

The crowding out and intimidation of religion does not have to manifest itself in something as obvious as, for instance, the government raids against Church officials in Brussels in which bishops were detained and interrogated for nine hours without due process; their private computers, cell phones, and files seized.

Often the shift away from religion is more subtle. Archbishop Chaput pointed out how some U.S. government officials have begun replacing the term “religious freedom” to the more circumscribed notion of “freedom of worship.”

“Religious freedom includes the right to preach, teach, assemble, organize, and to engage society and its issues publicly, both as individuals and joined together as communities of faith,” the archbishop said. “In contrast, freedom of worship is a much smaller and more restrictive idea.”

And so the space for religion grows smaller.

In Slovakia, Archbishop Chaput knew he was speaking to a people and culture that had lived, suffered and persevered under the grip of atheist totalitarianism, from the Nazis to the Communists. He lamented that Americans lacked such a historical memory of what statist atheism truly means. In other words, the specter of secularism is not the same dark memory as it is for many in Eastern Europe. 

And secularism itself has adapted. Modern secularism is different, more benign, compared with that of the past, but the result is ultimately the same, warned Archbishop Chaput:

Today’s secularizers have learned from the past.  They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely.  A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering.

So what will it take, according to Archbishop Chaput, to prevent relativism – the new religion and public philosophy of the West – from uprooting the Christian heritage that has guided our culture until this point?

In the face of government’s pushing of secularism, in one way or another, the archbishop argues, we must not go along with “Caesar,” but instead become a:

… believing community of resistance. We need to call things by their true names. We need to fight the evils we see. And most importantly, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that by going along with the voices of secularism and de-Christianization we can somehow mitigate or change things. Only the Truth can set men free.

Archbishop Chaput’s call for a “reawakening” of the Church, both in our personal and public lives, is needed now more than ever. The West depends upon our Christian witness to the truth. There may be political solutions and safeguards for our religious freedoms, but for religion to remain truly vital in public life, it requires our own active example and vigilance.

-- Paul Ciarcia

Never Never Land for today's 'emerging adults'?

Are more and more 20-somethings delaying adulthood? Can such a trend be categorized as a distinct life stage? What does this age group, defined by its emerging characteristics, reveal about the role of religion in the 21st century?

These are just some of the questions at the center of the debate generated from Robin Marantz Henig’s article in the New York Times Magazine last week titled “Why are so many people in their 20s taking so long to grow up?” Henig profiles the work of Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., who labels the phenomenon among 20-somethings as a distinct life stage called “emerging adulthood.”

In his book, Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties, Arnett argues that what is happening now is comparable to what happened a century ago, when social and economic changes created the stage of adolescence — “a stage we take for granted but one that had to be recognized by psychologists, accepted by society and accommodated by institutions that served the young.” Arnett writes that similar changes at the turn of the 21st century have laid the groundwork for yet another life stage that falls between the age of 18 and 29. In this stage, individuals postpone the “transition to adulthood” defined by five milestones: completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying and having a child.

Among the changes that have set the stage for this new categorization are: the need for more education to survive in an information-based economy; the overall lack of entry-level jobs; young people feeling less rushed to get married because of the general acceptance of premarital sex, cohabitation and birth control; and young women feeling more at ease with postponing childbirth given their wide range of career options and access to assisted reproductive technologies.

Proponents of Arnett’s theory agree on a need to rethink our definition of normal development and create systems of education, health care and social support that take the new stage into account.
Critics, on the other hand, argue that emerging adulthood doesn’t qualify as a developmental stage, because it is neither universal nor essential. Some say that it is a term used to describe a small percentage of young individuals from first world countries who, due to their financially privileged circumstances, have acquired the luxury of time.

The deeper question behind the “scholarly intrigue” is whether this period of deferring adulthood is a good thing or a bad thing. Furthermore, how does it transition to the spiritual life of today’s Millennials?
Arnett concludes that during this timeout, “Emerging adults develop skills for daily living, gain a better understanding of who they are and what they want from life and begin to build a foundation for their adult lives.”

Turning his attention to the spiritual characteristics of emerging adults is Dr. Christian Smith, author of “Souls in Transition,” professor of sociology and the director of the center for study of religion and society at the University of Notre Dame. In a recent podcast interview on oneplace.com, Smith builds on Armett’s theory, adding that emerging adulthood is having a big implication on churches whose prime target demographic remains nuclear families.

Smith argues that increasingly, single people continue to feel as though “faith-life” has little to offer them. The very fact that emerging adulthood is defined by “postponing settling down” means that its roots are shallow. He says, “If you think of a faithful Christian life as one of looking in the long term, making commitments, sticking to your commitments, sticking to a congregation, working out a faithful marriage. All those aspects have to do with settling down and making commitments.” 

Smith does note that parents remain central to the whole spiritual equation in the life of today’s youth.  Likewise, 15% of EAs are a “committed traditionalist,” know what they believe and practice it. The majority fall into a “selective adherence” category, where they are “for” the faith but prefer to either pick and chose their beliefs or remain simply “indifferent” – choosing to believe that faith is irrelevant to them at this point in their lives, “perhaps in the same way life insurance would be.”

Arnett also draws out some interesting research findings on this age group’s spirituality. According to his chapter “Sources of Meaning: Religious Beliefs and Values”:

• This group falls into four categories: agnostic/atheist (22%); deist (28%); liberal believer (27%); conservative believer (23%).
• 58% said their religious beliefs were “very important” or “quite important.”
• 79% believe a higher power watches over them and guides their lives.
• Only 25% think attending religious services is “very important” or “quite important”; 42% said “not important at all.”
• Several students believe that God is like “The Force” in Star Wars.
• Disillusioning or bad church experiences result in anger, resentment, or hostility toward religion.
• Emerging adults tend to “personalize” their own religious views by combining or borrowing from other religions or spirituality traditions.

In terms of evangelization and catechesis for this age group, such statistics show there is obviously much work cut out for the Church. Yet looking at this snapshot of “emerging adults” in a positive light, we find a generation that is open to discovery, learning and time spent “soul-searching” in order to find their place in this world. If the Church can meet these young people where they are, hopefully those looking to hang on to the idea of “Never Never Land” for just a bit longer may be guided in the right direction to make the most of these few extra years of formation.

-- Michele Nuzzo-Naglieri

Hollywood's model families

Two recent articles highlight a new storyline emerging from Hollywood – one that embraces a nontraditional notion of the American family. From a plot about a lesbian couple’s teenage children seeking out their sperm-donor father; to a hit TV comedy that features a gay couple with an adopted child; to a chick flick involving the unmarried heroine announcing, “I am in the market for some semen,” it’s not a stretch to assume that the common theme is that the new normal for American families is what’s not normal – but that, in the end, everyone turns out fine because of it.

Describing the novelty behind The Kids Are All Right (in which two lesbian women and their teens adjust to their sperm donor’s sudden appearance in their lives), a USA TODAY article reports:

The plot … isn't driven by the lesbian relationship; it would work the same if the couple were straight.

“It’s the perfect post-gay film,” says Howard Bragman, a Hollywood publicist known as the “coming-out guru” for helping gay celebs go public. “Gays are just part of the landscape, which is where we want to be.”

… Director Lisa Cholodenko, herself a lesbian mom, says she didn't set out to tell a political story or even a lesbian story; she set out to tell a family story.

"We wanted to make a film about a family and a marriage in midlife, at a low point, the things you don't see in most movies about what families look like behind closed doors," she told USA TODAY's Donna Freydkin.

On First Things, Mary Rose Somarriba critiques the flippant approach toward conception, pregnancy and, ultimately, marriage that pervades recent romantic comedies such as Jennifer Aniston’s The Switch and Jennifer Lopez’s The Back-Up Plan. Somarriba laments:

What’s sad is that some real, deep aspects of the human experience—such as the realization of one’s aging, the desire for love and family, and the sorrow of lost time—are covered up with chipper confidence that none of these things matter anymore. Age doesn’t matter. Time is never lost.

Love and commitment aren’t necessary; in fact, they’re not even worth seeking. You can start a family all on your own. It’s a Do-It-Yourself Family! The biological bond required to conceive a child—a male’s sperm and a female’s egg—is all you need; you don’t need the metaphysical and the personal bond with another to make a family.

Aniston herself caused something of a stir earlier this month, when she said, “The point of the movie is: what is it that defines a family? It isn't necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot. … [I]t is not the traditional sort of stereotype of what we have been taught as a society of what family is.”

Yet Hollywood’s called Tinseltown for a reason.

A couple weeks ago, researcher Elizabeth Marquardt challenged just how true to life The Kids Are All Right is, arguing that despite the film’s complex characters and deft handling of the emotions that surround the subject of in vitro fertilization, “the movie is a fantasy.”

This summer, Marquardt released a study titled “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” on the effects anonymous sperm donation has on donor offspring. She found that these children are “hurting more, more confused, and more isolated from their families compared to those who are adopted or raised by their biological parents,” and that they are at significantly higher risk to struggle with substance abuse, delinquency, and depression.

“In real life, there is no script for these kids,” she said. “It’s up to them to figure everything out and make the best of it.”

So how should Catholics react?

How about by engaging with the script?

Marquardt gives us a good example by illuminating the holes in director Lisa Cholodenko’s “family story.” Or take a show like ABC’s Modern Family, which Faith and Family blogger Rebecca Teti acknowledged “has a highly troubling same-sex partner story-line, but which is well-produced, well-acted, hilarious and very warm.”

“The producers and writers of that show are onto something true about family life, even though they don’t share a Christian sense of morality,” Teti wrote earlier this year. “They write with a clear sense of affection for family life, whereas I can think of other ‘cleaner’ shows that play like a relentless mean-spirited attack on the family.”

Of course, it’s a matter of discernment whether an individual Catholic should watch a certain film or show, allow his or her child to, or recommend it to others. If we do choose to consume such media, though, we must do so critically, and with the courage to ask what’s true in this storyline, what’s false, and what’s a starting point for evangelization.

Especially in a state where Proposition 8 is still undergoing a legal battle, it should come as no surprise that Hollywood’s fictional families are symbolizing a transition away from the notion of the traditional family – a family formed by a mother and a father, founded on their marriage and nourished by their life-giving love for each other and their children. You can bet such film and TV offerings won’t be going away any time soon. But for those of us who believe in upholding the truth and goodness of marriage and family, how we respond can make all the difference.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

Celebrating Mother Teresa's faith, work and legacy

Today marks the 100th birthday of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Around the world everything from memorial services and public rallies to commemorative stamps and comic books will celebrate the memory of the diminutive Albanian nun who inspired the world through her commitment to Christ’s call to love and care for “the least among us.”

The National Catholic Register details the many different celebrations taking place to mark the centenary of Mother Teresa’s birth. Some highlights include:

• Benedictine College in Kansas will mark the special occasion by officially opening the Mother Teresa Center for Nursing and Health Education.
• The Knights of Columbus Museum in New Haven, Conn. is hosting the American premiere exhibit of Mother Teresa: Life, Spirituality and Message.
• Bill Donahue and the Catholic League will host a rally for Mother Teresa outside the Empire State Building in New York City. Donahue initially wanted the landmark to be specially lighted in blue and white, the colors of the Missionaries of Charity. You can read about that saga here.

Catholic News Service offers an overview of Mother Teresa’s continued impact, especially on young people. The article points out that youth make up a large portion of Mother Teresa devotees. According to Eileen Burke-Sullivan, professor of theology at Creighton University, young people were drawn to images of Mother Teresa serving the poorest of the poor.

"What strikes them is that she practiced what she preached,” Burke-Sullivan said – she "lived and died working for poor."

Some critics have argued that Mother Teresa failed to fight the systemic evils that plagued society – especially India’s slums – and should have lobbied for social change instead of dedicating her time to caring for the sick and dying. In a column written for Canada’s National Post, Father Thomas Rosica rejects these claims, arguing that Mother Teresa’s legacy teaches us the value of each individual:

Some have said that in Mother Teresa, there was no element of prophetic criticism in her teachings and her lifestyle. Instead of acting sensibly by applying for government grants to create programs to eliminate poverty, Mother Teresa and her sisters moved into neighborhoods and befriended people. Their houses often become oases of hope and peace, like the ones in Canada, and especially the convent in downtown Toronto. When Mother Teresa spoke of ‘sharing poverty,’ she defied the logic of institutions that preferred agendas for the poor, not communion with individual poor people. Agents and instruments of communion are often called irrelevant by the world.

We live in an increasingly narcissistic society, where superficial Facebook status updates and egocentric tweets are celebrated as the new mode of interpersonal communication. To each of us caught up in that world Mother Teresa represents a different model – that of an authentic Christian witness who communicated a selfless message of service to the poorest of the poor. Her example showed us that by serving those who suffer or are in need we answer Christ’s call. She continues to inspire others to accept their own responsibility as citizens and as believers. In that way, Mother Teresa has helped foster more societal change than any political or lobbying campaign. She always knew that true change occurs in the human heart when it is infused with the love of Christ. Mother Teresa would often remind her followers that “we are not called to be successful but to be faithful.” As we mark her 100th birthday, I dare to say that her life proves we can accomplish both.

-- David Naglieri

Catholics continue to give to Haiti

The 2010 Haiti earthquake left an estimated 230,000 Haitians dead, at least 300,000 people injured, and about a million displaced.

Yet in the face of Haiti's long list of challenges – from the upcoming presidential elections, to the constant need for medical supplies, to the lack of significant progress to put the dislocated under roofs – Catholic organizations and agencies have not wavered in their support for the small island country in desperate need of help.

According to an article from Catholic News Service, as of Aug. 10 more than $303 million has been collected by Catholic groups around the world, including special collections sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Internationalis and other organizations that sponsor ministries in the island nation.

Notably, nearly half that total -- $147, 473, 281 – was donated by Catholics in the United States.

The CNS story quoted the reaction of Oblate Father Andrew Small, director of the U.S. bishops’ Collection for the Church in Latin America, to Americans’ generosity toward Haiti.

“American Catholics are not just fair, I think they’re more than fair,” said Father Small. “When you see someone desperate, you do everything you can to help them. Given the unique nature of the devastation, we saw a unique outpouring of compassion and concrete generosity.”

Catholic Relief Services is one of those organizations. In terms of helping Haitians cope with living in tent cities and other temporary structures eight months after the quake, CRS has distributed more than 33,000 emergency shelter kits of plastic tarp, rope, nails, mosquito nets and blankets. According to CRS, the kits have provided housing for about 165,000 Haitians and provided more privacy and protection against the elements than the thin bed sheets they replaced.

Overall, CRS has become the largest contributor worldwide to Haiti relief efforts, having collected over $65.2 million in addition to the money brought in by special collections in U.S. parishes. 

The Knights of Columbus have been another major player in bringing hope to Haiti’s survivors. Earlier this month, the Knights announced a new initiative to help the estimated 800 Haitian children who lost limbs in the earthquake. The Catholic service organization is committing to donate $1 million for prosthetic limbs and therapy for these children. In addition to the “Hope for Haiti’s Children” program, the Knights are also helping to bring 2,000 wheelchairs for injured individuals.

"Almost eight months after the devastating earthquake, we must not forget the children of Haiti, who still need our help, and who continue to be so greatly affected by this disaster,” said Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus. "We believe that this program for the injured children of Haiti will not only alleviate their mobility issues in the near term, but also will provide real, concrete hope for their future."

There is still much work to be done however, in order to house all. Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the papal nuncio to Haiti, stated:

It’s always emergency from the humanitarian perspective. The camps are always the same as they were days after the earthquake. Some say that instead of diminishing, the camp populations have seen an increase, at least in some, attracted by aid distribution and possibility of cash-for-work, as well as the impossibility of finding better alternatives.

The archbishop said 250,000 homes are needed to house the 1.5 million people who remain in the camps.

It will be a long time before Haiti fully recovers from the damage done by the January earthquake. Last month, a group from the U.S. bishops conference traveled to Haiti to see firsthand the needs that still need to be met there.

As Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando described the situation:

Haiti is at a crossroads and it is crucial that the international community not lessen its commitment to the rebuilding process. … It will take time to make Haiti whole again, but it is important that the Haitian people and the children of Haiti – its future leaders – do not lose hope.

As an integral part of the universal Church, Catholic charities and organizations must and will continue to play a crucial role in Haiti’s restoration. Their dedication to serve their neighbors in Haiti is an exemplary response to the call to love that summons us all.

-- Patrick Redding

Rejecting the destruction of human life, in all its forms

In June 2008, the U.S. bishops issued a statement entitled “On Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” In it, they warned:

It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point. The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject the first step down this path.

People in the pro-life community have their hands full fulfilling this mandate, from promoting the culture of life in legislatures and public opinion, to being vigilant against the governing funding of abortion providers and embryonic stem cell research.

Yesterday, though, the district court of Washington, D.C. handed down a major victory in defense of human life. In the case of Dr. James L. Sherley v. Kathleen Sebelius, Judge Royce Lambeth granted an injunction against the Obama administration’s new guidelines, issued via executive order, for human embryonic stem cell research that had in effect ended the Bush Administration’s restrictions on the embryo-destructive research.

Since 1995, federal law has banned federal funding of research that involves the destruction of human embryos. And since President Bill Clinton, administrations have gone back in forth in their issuance of guidelines over compliance with the ban. The latest guidelines, issued by the National Institutes of Health, reinterpreted the ban to allow funding of embryonic stem cell research, with the exception of the actual withdrawal of the stem cells and destruction of the embryo – even though the research itself requires and depends on such an action. This, the judge found in his opinion, was a hairsplitting distinction that he did not buy:

This prohibition encompasses all “research in which” an embryo is destroyed, not just the “piece of research” in which the embryo is destroyed. Had Congress intended to limit the [amendment banning Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research] to only those discrete acts that result in the destruction of an embryo, like the derivation of [embryonic stem cells] ESCs, or to research on the embryo itself, Congress could have written the statute that way. Congress, however, has not written the statute that way, and this Court is bound to apply the law as it is written… ESC research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed. To conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins was encouraged by the ruling, saying, “Rather than fund additional embryo-destructive research, the government should focus its resources on adult stem cells that are already improving health and saving the lives of patients with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury and many other conditions.”

The important take away from Judge Lambeth’s ruling, which people on both sides of the issue seem to agree on, is that federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is a game changer. Without government money, there is simply not a sustainable amount of funding available.

If the worth of this research can’t stand on its own feet, then being taken off the federal dole is a fait accompli. That itself should tell us something – after all, if embryonic stem cells are a medical miracle for so many debilitating diseases, shouldn’t there be more than enough private funding from medical companies and other investors?

The New York Times discussed the predicament of Dr. George Q. Daley, director of the stem cell transplantation program at Children’s Hospital Boston, who sees the ruling as a major setback for his research team.

“I have had to tell everyone in my lab that when they feed their cells tomorrow morning, they better use media that has not been funded by the federal government,” he said.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said science “has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure, and that is the embryonic stem cell research.”

In fact, Dr. James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin – who was on the team responsible for first isolating human embryonic stem cells in 1998 – now admits that scientists have overestimated embryonic stem cells’ prospects as medicinal cures. 

The irresponsible use of science may lead us down many dark paths. As the U.S. bishops noted, it is on the fundamental matters of principle that we must take a moral stand. Fortunately in this matter, good ethics and good science are on the same side. 

A future for Iraq's Christians?

With last week’s withdrawal of the last U.S. combat brigade in Iraq, a recent Vatican Radio interview brings a Catholic perspective to unfurling events in the war-torn region, highlighting the powerful plead of Baghdad’s Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni for the exiting troops to not leave their job undone.

“We desire, we ask, and we scream for peace and security,” said Bishop Warduni. “There are no jobs, there are car bombs, kamikaze attacks and other acts of violence. If foreign troops leave, they have a duty to leave peace and security behind them.”

According to the U.N. Human Rights Council, about 50 percent of Iraq’s 1.4 million Christians have fled the country amid the violence and political turmoil that has rocked the country since the U.S. launched its military campaign in Iraq in 2003. The northern city of Mosul has especially become a point of reference for acts of terrorism targeted at Christians – including the kidnapping and murder of Chaldean Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho in 2008.

Bishop Warduni was even blunter in an interview given to the Italian newspaper La Stampa. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter offered his translation of the piece, quoting the bishop as saying, “After toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein, the United States never achieved what they promised to the world. Now there’s only rubble. … The situation is worse for everyone, but especially for us Christians.”

While not nearly as provocative, another Chaldean priest, Father Noel Gorgis, offered similar comments when he wasprofiled on Headline Bistro earlier this year.

Father Gorgis – himself a refugee from Saddam Hussein’s regime now ministering to the Chaldean community in North Hollywood, Calif. – had expressed Iraqis’ concerns that American troops might prematurely pull out of the country.

“Without the Americans, Iraq will be in utter chaos and Christians will be the most affected,” said Father Gorgis, who as a new priest was conscripted in Hussein’s army – both in the 1987 Iran-Iraq War and again in the Persian Gulf War against the United States – before fleeing to Turkey.

Father Gorgis continued, “Without the presence of American troops, they will be exposed and unprotected. Iraq would be devoid of Christians if the Americans were to leave. They must remain to ensure security until the government regains control of the situation.”

In the meanwhile, Iraq’s new ambassador to the Holy See, Habbeb Mohammed Hadi Ali al-Sadr, offered a hopeful picture of the future for Iraq’s much-beleaguered Christian minority – including government plans to aid returning Christian refugees with jobs, land to rebuild their homes and $1,300 worth of Iraqi currency.

“Iraq, in its revival, cannot do without (Christians),” Al-Sadr told the press last month in Rome. He pointed to other, specific actions the Iraqi government has taken to ensure that Christians have a role in the future of the country, such as reserving five seats in Parliament for Christians.

“Today Iraqi Christians fully enjoy liberty of worship, as well as civil and political rights,” Al-Sadr continued – a statement that would surely be challenged by Bishop Warduni, at least in terms of its practical application throughout the country.

Even as the United States’ presence in Iraq may be slowly drawing to an end, in no way is its involvement finished. Likewise, the plight of Iraqi Christians is nowhere near a resolution, though as Ambassador Al-Sadr pointed out, the country can only benefit from not only protecting, but including the Christian community in these upcoming, decisive years.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

Archbishop Dolan enters the continuing saga of the Ground Zero mosque

Archbishop Timothy Dolan has waded into one of the hottest political debates in the news recently: the clash over the so-called Ground-Zero mosque, a large Muslim cultural center and mosque to be constructed at a site only blocks from the 9/11 attacks in lower Manhattan. I discussed details of its controversial funding and the views of its planners in an earlier NewsWrap here. Since then, media attention has only heightened after President Obama seemed to throw his support behind the mosque project during a White House Ramadan celebration.

 “Let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” he declared at a dinner on August 13 honoring the start of the Muslim holy month.

He continued:  “And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.” 

Even as the president gave his implicit support to the project, public opposition to the mosque rose 5 points to 63 percent.

An article in the New York Times today discusses an impromptu interview with Archbishop Dolan in which he offers to act as a mediator between opposing parties in the debate, a difficult role in a politically charged environment, but one that he is particularly suited to, as evidenced by his heavy involvement in the issue of illegal immigration. 

The Archbishop has hinted at his personal views on the mosque, pointing to the wisdom of John Paul II, who in 1993 successfully moved a group of Catholic nuns away from a convent next to the Aushwitz Concentration camp by saying “lets keep the idea, and maybe move the address.” Like others, Archbishop Dolan seems comfortable saying that though the builders of the Muslim mosque may be within their right to do what they plan on doing, a simple change of venue might be in order, especially when considering the sensitivities of the victims. 

-- Paul Ciarcia

The Pope in the UK: A Seismic Moment

Next month Pope Benedict XVI will travel to Great Britain for the much-anticipated beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman. However, the trip’s itinerary, released today by the Vatican, reveals an ambitious papal voyage that will challenge the political, social and ecumenical realities in a secularized nation.

The pope’s visit to the UK will take place from Sept. 16-19. Benedict XVI will begin his trip in Edinburgh, Scotland where he will meet with Queen Elizabeth II and celebrate a public Mass in Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park.  That evening, the pope will fly to London where he will spend the next three days attending religious and civil events. Highlights include an ecumenical visit with the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, meetings with the prime minister and members of the opposition party, and a papal speech at a gathering of religious, cultural and civic leaders in Westminster hall. The visit will culminate on Sunday, Sept. 19 with the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman in Birmingham’s Cofton Park.  The pope’s address in Westminster Hall will be unique in that the Holy Father will be speaking to all four living former Prime Ministers – Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

With the papal schedule made official today, Holy See spokesman Father Federico Lombardi offered some candid insights on the significance of the papal voyage during an interview with Vatican Radio. When asked to characterize the Vatican’s aspirations for the papal trip, Father Lombardi responded:

I would say that what is expected, desired and really hoped for from this visit is that the service of Christian faith and service of the Catholic Church to a very developed but also very secular society, like the United Kingdom, will be presented and understood. A reality in which perhaps many people question the value of Christian witness and indeed Catholic witness in society. Therefore, to help understand that this is a gift to society, a wealth that is offered through a service of spiritual inspiration but, also, of involvement in education, in health, in charity which is very important. Indeed, we hope that the Pope's trip will help make known this friendly positivity of the Catholic Church and the Christian faith, to a society that for many reasons is no longer – perhaps –very aware of this.

For American Catholics interested in following Pope Benedict’s UK visit, EWTN will be providing complete live coverage. Raymond Arroyo, who will anchor EWTN’s coverage, says the trip’s importance is being underestimated in certain quarters.

"To my mind, this visit to the U.K. is to Pope Benedict XVI's papacy what Pope John Paul II's visit to Poland was to his. Not enough attention is being paid to the historicity of this seismic moment," Arroyo said.

Thus far this year Pope Benedict has been well received in trips to Malta, Portugal, and Cyprus. During those voyages he has spoken out strongly in defense of religious liberty, family values, the sanctity of marriage and the dignity of human life. When the pope brings Catholicism’s core social message to the deeply secularized UK, we will certainly be witnessing an important moment.  Regardless of the final impact this trip has on the overall culture and religious identity of England, it will certainly be witness to the courage and faithfulness of St. Peter’s successor, who once again will confront the “dictatorship of relativism” with the Gospel of Life.

David Naglieri

"Easy Access to Abortion"?

In the campaign for increased abortion rights, one of the most frequently employed arguments is the stressed need for women’s “easy access to abortion.” The National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America all consider this statement a fundamental plank in their missions, and in the recent health care debate, efforts to bar all federal funding of abortion coverage were met with the staunch contention that such legislation would “punish” women by restricting their access to abortion.

Their premise? As Planned Parenthood’s political action fund puts it:

Access to abortion is legal, constitutionally protected, and consistently supported by a majority of Americans; yet anti-choice organizations and policymakers have made it increasingly harder for women to access needed care. Anti-choice hardliners erode access to abortion through court battles, ballot measures, and burdensome legislative restrictions on abortion services — some extremists even resort to intimidation, harassment, and violence against women and health care providers.

In other words, upholding the legacy of Roe v. Wade as their banner for unfettered access to abortion, groups like Planned Parenthood decry initiatives like parental notification, waiting periods, and abortion restrictions based on the unborn child’s gestational age as the actions of “anti-choice hardliners” and even violent ”extremists” who wish to keep women from “needed care.”

There are many troublesome points about that statement – not the least of which is the claim that support for such a vision of completely unrestricted access to abortion is “consistently supported by a majority of Americans.”

Just last week, Rasmussen surveyed 1,000 likely voters on their opinions on pro-life/pro-choice issues. Consistent with findings from the past four years, the poll revealed that by more than three to one (48 percent to 15 percent), American voters think abortions are too easy to obtain in the U.S., rather than too hard.

Significantly, a majority of women – 53 percent – agreed with the American plurality that it is too easy to procure an abortion, and even more so than men, who came in at 49 percent.

Rasmussen’s findings complement our own Knights of Columbus/Marist poll from last summer, which found that 86 percent of Americans would significantly restrict abortion to the first trimester of pregnancy and beyond the limits already in place in most states. Even more impressive was that this overwhelming majority included 60 percent of Americans who would limit abortion to the extremely rare cases of rape or incest or when the mother’s life was in danger – or would ban abortion under all circumstances.

Responding to the Rasmussen abortion poll, a Newsmax article pointed out the inconsistency between the findings and abortion advocates’ frequent claim that their liberal positions on “easy access to abortion” represent that of the American public:

The findings belie the often triumphalist attitude of liberal activist groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America – which in 2003 even changed its name from the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League to emphasize its contention that America was a “pro-choice country” where most citizens supported the agenda of easily-obtained abortion on demand.

In fact, by international standards the U.S. is on the extreme, being one of only about a half dozen countries in the world with virtually unrestricted abortion throughout pregnancy. As a Senate Judiciary Committee report on abortion noted, “no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy.”

Interestingly, though various polls over the past year have found positive shifts in American public opinion toward a more pro-life position – Gallup recently declared “The New Normal on Abortion” after finding for the second year in a row a slight majority of self-described pro-life Americans – the Rasmussen poll did not put pro-life voters in the majority. Rather, 49 percent of likely voters say they are pro-choice, while 43 percent describe themselves as pro-life.

In other words, it should not be assumed that all self-described pro-choice voters in America support more liberalized abortion laws in the U.S., or would be against further restrictions that – as the KofC/Marist poll found – the American consensus is behind.

Rasmussen’s breakdown of pro-choice voters found that 19 percent think abortions are too easy to get in this country; 26 percent think they are too hard and 38 percent think access to abortion is “about right.” Likewise, when we asked more specific questions, we even found that strong majorities of self-described “strongly pro-choice” Americans believe in conscience protections for health care workers, as well as laws that can protect both the health of the women and the life of the unborn child.

The abortion numbers are much more nuanced than typically portrayed, and when it comes to restrictions on the procedure, Americans are nowhere near as supportive of unfettered access to abortion as its advocates may claim. And that’s an argument worth repeating in the national conversation on abortion today.

-- Elizabeth Hansen