For His Friends

I must have something of a death wish for reopening this issue but I was thinking about what has happened in the year since the University of Notre Dame held its last commencement ceremony with all the attendant publicity and controversy. What prompted this reflection was the splendid Laetare Medal recipient’s speech given this year and available on the “mother of all Catholic blogs,” Whispers in the Loggia“ (worth a listen!) What are the givens a year later after President Obama’s appearance, commencement address, and award of an honorary degree? Notre Dame is still the premier Catholic university in the country; its current President enjoys more support from faculty, students, Board of Trustees and nation than he did prior to the contretemps; more parents than ever seek admission to Notre Dame for their daughters and sons; and in a moment of truth, many bishops in the United States would tell you that ND produces more signs of hope for the faith and its transmission from its young graduates than any other Catholic college or university. True, some alumni may temporarily or permanently cease giving to their alma mater but my sources tell me that this backwash has been very minimal. So the University continues along doing good things, preparing students to live in a religiously pluralistic world and embracing a strong Catholic identity as well as core beliefs.

How about President Obama, who along with the university president, took his lumps during the controversy? Well, “the most pro-abortion president ever elected” as he is often referred to has not exactly led the pro-abortion movement as was feared. His actions to date, and I emphasize to date, are no more pro-abortion, anti-life than the Clinton administration’s in their eight years with whom I had to deal during my Washington years. His actions on behalf of born human life have led to a lessening of the chance of nuclear war; extended health care which the Church posits as a basic human right soon to be available to millions of additional Americans even if, as I suspect, the legislation has severe flaws; he promises a genuine, just and effective immigration policy for the future; and so on. In other words, last year’s Notre Dame commencement speaker with the worrisome exception of being   unacceptably pro-choice/pro-abortion  has done other things which embody much of Catholic social teaching and its concomitant dreams for a better society. The jury is still out on this president in many ways and the history of his presidency is yet to be written. We will have to see.

How has the Church fared through this controversy and its fallout? Some bishops chose to take a strong stand. I was not among them then and am not now. I merely publicly stated that the exclusion of the local bishop from the decision making process on something which would be controversial was sad, as I understood it at the time. I would hate to be blind-sided by such an occurrence in this diocese, even if the college or university chose to reject my position and proceed anyway. I believe that a university can remain solidly Catholic while allowing for a certain freedom of expression. Inviting the President of the United States and having him accept, even if there are substantial differences of opinion on major issues, is not beyond the scope of my thinking. President Bush was invited to Notre Dame very early in his time in office with rumblings already in the air about an attack on Iraq which was a challenge even then to the traditional Catholic just war theory. He also unabashedly supported capital punishment.  Anyone who thought then or thinks now that the nature of the college or university in the United States is likely to change because of the assault on Notre Dame last year is deceiving themselves. Perhaps colleges and universities will be more cautious (thoughtful?) in making the choices, and perhaps local bishops where these colleges and universities are located may be more involved prior to a public announcement, but that, or so it seems to me, is about all that was accomplished last year. Zero sum gain for the Church, in my mind.

I remain proud of the University of Notre Dame, our own St. Leo University, St. Thomas and Barry University in Miami, and of all our Catholic colleges and universities. They need a certain amount of autonomy within the framework of a dedication to Catholic identity to remain credible in the higher education ethos in which they are found. As I have often said in this space in the last year and a half, as shepherds we need more energy and assistance in inviting people into the Church than drumming them out. As a religious minority in a pluralistic society we have much to be proud of  in our elementary and secondary schools, our colleges and universities, our hospitals and nursing homes, our charitable outreach through various ministries of mercy. Only close collaboration has a chance of keeping all these disparate elements in the fold. Attacks do little good for the common weal other than make the attacker feel better. Finding common ground remains the Christian and Catholic way of dealing with those things which can be accommodated while boldly but perhaps more empathetically teaching that which can not be changed. This is the reflection I draw from last year’s dome days.

+RNL

Cardinal Francis George, OMI, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the USCCB

At almost the same time that President Obama was signing the house passed Health Care bill yesterday (Tuesday), the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was meeting in Washington for their three times yearly meeting (March, September and the Saturday prior to the November meeting). The Administrative Committee consists of approximately thirty-five bishops who head standing committees, represent the fifteen regional groupings of bishops and the Eastern Rite bishops, the elected officers of the Conference and the Chairman of the Board of Catholic Relief Services. Their primary task is prepare the agenda for the plenary or general meetings that occur in June and November when all the bishops gather. But they also may address issues which come up between General Meetings and were either unforeseen at the time or discussed in general at the previous meeting.

Yesterday morning they met for their scheduled meeting and authorized Cardinal George, our elected President, to make the following statement on the passage of health care reform. I offer it below in its entirety and hope you will take time to read it. It will take some time for all that happened this week-end to be digested, finally analyzed, and its application made clearly known. Most of the health care reform bill does not take effect until the year 2014. But it should not take that long for constitutional scholars to unpack the issues and pro-life forces to monitor its implementation. This matter is far from concluded. It is not over. The coming days I hope will be more informative than the days just past with regard to the reach and impact of all this legislation and I hope and pray we move from an environment of a lot of heat and sometime insufficient light to a better understanding. The statement of our president (Cardinal George), unanimously supported by the members of the Administrative Committee, begins the Church’s contribution to the post-enactment analysis. My guess would be that most bishops felt that a lot of good was done last Sunday afternoon and evening but we also worry about how much harm might also have been done.

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.

Last night I received an e-mail from Sister Carol Keehan whom I had tried to reach by phone prior to writing the previous blog. She was flying and I was busy so we never connected. Sister Carol is a good woman of the Church, no liberal trouble-maker by any stretch of the imagination and a woman who as CEO turned Providence Hospital around from certain bankruptcy and closing to a viable facility in the northeast section of the District serving an increasingly poor and marginalized community. She is worthy of being listened to and the other members of the CHA (Catholic Health Association) board respect both her experience and her wisdom. She writes and I believe I owe it to her to place here: “I need to tell you that the information about our position [in your blog] is incorrect. I know that it is what Cardinal George’s statement says but that is not our position. We believe that the Senate bill as written now, meets the test of no federal funding for abortion. We said that we wanted that preserved in the reconciliation bill not fixed. That is a misrepresentation of our position. We would not have taken the position we took if we were hoping for a fix. It had to be already in place and it is. Many legal scholars, the ABC News “Fact Check” also same the same thing. The provisions were negotiated by Senators Casey and Nelson, two of the most ardent pro-lifers out there.”

I must also include for your thinking that several very reliable sources have said the same thing as Sister Carol above. The position of the bishops, which I embrace until I have some certainty that we are wrong, is being refuted by usually reliable sources and last night, Congressman Thomas Perriello, a conservative pro-life Catholic, said that he was convinced that the Senate version would guarantee that no federal funds would find their way to abortion services. If he moves to accept the Senate version, that will be a major moment for the pro-life movement given his past perfect record.

Passions run high in this matter, sometimes at the expense of rational analysis. I will try and keep myself informed of the developments throughout this week and continue to share my thoughts with you here. Now it is off on AMTRAK again, this time to Miami, for a visit with our twenty college seminarians and a funeral in Lake Worth tomorrow.

+RNL

Update: Here are the complete letter by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC and statement by Cardinal Francis George, OMI

Those of you who might be expecting some narrative of my weeks of confinement at St. Anthony’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, are bound to be disappointed. My purpose today is to address the recent statements of two organizations within the Church seemingly at loggerheads on the matter of health care reform.

On Saturday, the Catholic Health Association of the United States of America announced that the Senate health care reform plan enjoyed that association’s blessings, with some minor difficulties which needed to be fixed prior to passage or before enactment.

On Monday, Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on behalf of the bishops saying that the Senate Health Care plan, while containing many admirable features is unacceptable because of far too generous abortion provision language and, sadly, its passage would have to be opposed by the bishops of the United States.

There you have it, two highly respected organizations representing the same Church of Jesus Christ on opposite sides of the street during this seemingly final week of deliberations and action. What should a serious Catholic make of all of this?

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I ask that you recall that:

• I am an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Catholic Health Association, serving the first year of my second three year term. Because of my well known illness, I have been unable to attend any CHA board meetings since last June and until only the last few days have been either unable or unwilling to read Board documentation. Therefore, as I write this¸ I have no personal knowledge of any discussions held and/or actions taken by the governing board prior to last Saturday’s press conference by Sister Carol Keehan, our president, and a woman whom I deeply admire for her history both in Catholic health care provision and pro-life advocacy.
• I am also a member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Again because of my lengthy and well publicized illness, I have been unable to attend or participate in any USCCB plenary meetings since November 2008 and until the last few days have been either unable or unwilling to read Conference documentation as well.
• Finally, for nine years I served as either Associate General Secretary for Public Policy Advocacy of the old NCCB-USCC or as General Secretary of the same, acting as the Chief Operating Officer for six years.

During the time of my confinement, I have been led to believe that CHA and USCCB were working together to eliminate any language in the health care proposals which threatened the effectiveness of the long standing Hyde amendment which prevents federal monies (your tax dollars and mine) from providing abortions. The USCCB skillfully acted as a major player in gaining the Stupak amendment to the House passed Health Care Reform Bill last Fall. CHA in the end supported the Stupak language.

CHA prefers the health care reform vision of the Senate bill as they deem it ultimately more successful, more efficient, and more effective than the House passed version. USCCB has no major objections to the language in the Senate bill as it relates to the delivery of services except for the need of greater inclusion of immigrants and its abortion language. CHA agrees that there are problems with the abortion language (or in some instances the lack thereof) in the Senate bill but offers that it can be fixed in the “reconciliation” process or after enactment. The bishops say in response to this basically, “that will be far too little and much too late.”

CHA says that general access to health care benefits is a right of all citizens and every effort should be expended to see that it is made available. USCCB agrees but says nothing in the law can or should either extend abortion “rights”, use taxpayer monies to pay for abortions through new insurance possibilities, or in any way infringe on the right of conscience of those opposed to participating in what they believe to be morally illicit procedures.

At the very beginning of this national debate, CHA and USCCB had a long record of working together for genuine, real health reform so that remains and does not divide.

So today, the Catholic Health Association says we are willing to accept the Senate version of health care reform with the understanding that the less than perfect working document must and will be improved later in the process.

And also today, the elected leader of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Francis George says passing the Senate bill will produce too large a loss of moral integrity and the Conference can not risk fixing things outside of the legislative process. He wants health care but finds the Senate bill requires too high a price with woefully inadequate abortion language and conscience protection proposals. The bishops want the Hyde amendment to apply fully which the House bill does and the Senate bill does not.

As a member of the Board of the Catholic Health Association, I too want universal access to health care in this country to all our inhabitants. But I do not wish it through a vehicle that expands abortion rights or weakens conscience clause protection. So I side with the USCCB on this one. Were the bishops’ conference asking for new legislation, further tightening access to abortion or writing new abortion language law, it would have trouble. From the beginning the bishops have said only we must insure that we keep what we have.

I hope and pray that in these final decisive days, the Congress will see the wisdom of the Church’s position on abortion in health care as articulated by the bishops and the experience and wisdom of the Catholic Health Care providers who yearn for a reform of a system which is failing and becoming incredibly expensive – to maintain and to access.

If this were a tennis match, it would not yet be “game” but “advantage bishops.” However, the game is still not over although it is approaching match point. I would hope that Congress will see the wisdom and find the ways to fully apply the Hyde amendment so that both CHA and the USCCB can unite in general support of health care reform that protects the life and dignity of all.

+RNL

The title of this blog entry which will arise from time to time means “and other things” and signals that you should look for an entry that most likely lacks “unity, coherence and emphasis.” In other words, I will use occasions like this to raise a number of issues which are clearly unrelated to each other. So fasten your seat belt, here goes:

One thoughtful reader upon reading the entry on the level of charitable giving in the US to Haiti in the five weeks since the earthquake asked what the likelihood is that it is getting to the people who need it the most. It is a good question and all I can do is share my experience, now several years old of chairing the Board of Catholic Relief Services. Haiti is a challenging place for non-profits to work. There is a dreadful combination of corruption and violence present in that country which every private voluntary organization working there must be prepared to deal with. It is nothing to have a band of armed men break into a warehouse with food and steal it only for the purpose of selling it on the black market. The strongest of locks and the presence of armed guards secures nothing in that country for sure. Yet, most of what is donated for the needs of the general population does get to those in need. Giving it to the government to distribute is not a great idea because of the corruption factor and one thing which helps CRS is that they can use a vast network of parishes and churches as distribution points and that works more often than not. To the writer of the comment, the pictures of the army using force to drive away those storming the food distribution points was likely necessary to keep the method of distribution to those most in need going. I would have bet that had those storming the food center been successful, everything being shared, donated, sent for the poor and needy would have ended up on the black market. Haiti can be chaotic at times but I think that CRS and other PVO’s are succeeding in seeing that what they have to give gets to the right people. Will it be perfect? Not likely. Can it still be effective and fair distribution? Yes.

Health care is back on the burner and I am suspicious that the anti-abortion protection of the House language will not be present in what is parleyed through the legislature in the coming weeks. We need health care but we do not need a new “open sesame” which for all intents and purposes directs yours and my taxes to support abortion services. It looks like the action is slated for the Senate and I encourage all to “swamp” Senator Nelson with pleas that he change his position. The rest of this diocese’s elected representatives in the House remain pro-life but they need some pressure to work harder for an acceptable health care proposal in general. Remember, the official position of the Church is that access to safe, affordable health care is a right in itself.

On a much, much smaller scale of human interest, most of my doctors have declared me “cured” and my surgeon has politely and appropriately begged “never to see me again” – professionally. I am back to work, taking the major public liturgies which I used to celebrate without fail but will continue through Spring not “to overdo it.” My recovery is an answer to many prayers – my own and many of yours as well. It is wonderful to feel useful once again.

The Florida bishops meet in Tallahassee next week for what we call “Catholic Days at the Capital.” Joined by several hundred volunteers we annually descend on the legislature as it opens its annual session, usually but likely not this time see the Governor for a discussion of issues of mutual concern, celebrate the annual Red Mass for the executive, legislative and judicial branches (usually only a sparse representation of the legislature shows up), and meet as a state conference of bishops. It can be one and a half long days so we will see what my staying power is this year.

On Tuesday I am going to drive right through Tallahassee and keep going to spend an hour with my dear friend and fellow bishop, John Ricard, of Tallahassee-Pensacola. He is in rehab at the moment and remains in need of many prayers. He is a great man and a good bishop and the priests, deacons, religious and people of his diocese are worried about and for him. I will report in this space how he seems to be doing after I see him on Tuesday.

Don’t forget, we are once again lighting our Churches next Thursday night, March 11th and hearing confessions from 5-8 pm. The Light is ON for You.

So now you know what the Latin phrase et alia means – assorted and unsorted thoughts while shaving. God bless.

+RNL

Over the past week-end the media began to direct a  great deal of attention to the issue of Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and the Bishop of Providence, Bishop Thomas Tobin. The matter became media fodder when the Congressman chose to reveal the contents of a strictly personal and confidential letter sent to him several years ago by Bishop Tobin following pastoral outreach and conversation between the two on Kennedy’s ardent pro-abortion position. In that letter the Bishop as Kennedy’s bishop asked him to refrain from the reception of the Eucharist unless and until he embraced Church teaching on abortion and pro-life issues.

A few months ago, the Congressman raised the ante in the relationship by being openly critical of the Catholic bishops of the U.S. for risking the defeat of health care which he described as a true pro-life issue for concerns about abortion and conscience freedom guarantees. He stopped just short of calling the Church leadership “anti-life.” Bishop Tobin responded as I would have responded – calling a misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching for what it is. He did not publish his previous request to Kennedy to refrain from receiving the Eucharist and said he had no intention of making it public nor did he instruct the priests of his diocese to deny Eucharist to him (an allegation Kennedy made in his week-end interview). In other words, Bishop Tobin pursued conversation over confrontation and tried, unsuccessfully it would seem, a pastoral approach in asking the Congressman not to continue to give scandal by presenting himself as a member of the Catholic communion for communion. I think this is exactly how I would choose to proceed if faced with the same set of circumstances as was Bishop Tobin.

In judging this situation, please keep the following in mind:

1. Abortion is a moral issue which admits of no compromise. It is taking innocent human life. It has been the teaching of the Church for many decades and perhaps centuries. Catholics who choose to be pro-choice do not embrace the teaching of their Church on this issue and at some point can be considered to have separated themselves from the Catholic communion.

2. The Catholic Church leadership in this country is strongly committed to expanding health care to the uninsured. While it may seem that our commitment here is less passionate than our opposition to abortion, that’s not how I and my brother bishops feel. Abortion as a moral issue trumps but does not vitiate our support for expanded coverage for the poor and uninsured.

3. The Church in making its case before the Congress is acting as Cardinal George, our President said last week, based on principle, not politics. It is allowed to do this under section 501.C.3 of the Internal Revenue Service Code. We would likely cross the line if we endorsed or opposed a candidate for political office, which we do not do. Many of our more ardent pro-life Catholics would like to see more of the latter but it will not happen.

4. Congressman Kennedy, for whatever reasons, chose to take on his bishop and his Church’s teaching in an unconscionable manner. The bishop has responded as both pastor and teacher. I admire his restraint and his strength.

+RNL