US Catholic bishops and abortion: a critique from within the Church (Contribution)

The following is an abridged version of a chapter in Fr. Charles Curran’s newest book, The Social Mission of the U.S. Catholic Church: A Theological Perspective, which will be published in early January 2011 by Georgetown University Press. 

This text originally was given as a lecture sponsored by the Cary M. Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility at Southern Methodist University in Dallas Oct. 28.

This paper will address the position of the U.S. Catholic bishops on abortion legislation.

Four preliminary remarks help situate the discussion. The paper will not address church involvement in the public and political areas from the perspective of the First Amendment.

Second, the paper presupposes the position taken by most mainstream Christian churches -- that the Gospel and the church have something to say about public life and the good society.

Third, some of what will be said here is somewhat applicable to the leaders of all Christian churches, and even to the preacher in addressing the members of a particular church about social issues.

Fourth, the analysis and criticism will come from within the Catholic tradition itself. The paper accepts the moral teaching of the hierarchical magisterium of the Catholic church that direct abortion is always wrong.

The paper will disagree with the way Catholic bishops have addressed the issue of abortion law, but only from within the parameters of the Catholic tradition itself.

The consideration will develop in three sections. The first part will focus on what the Catholic bishops themselves have said about how as bishops they should address specific issues of American public policy and what are the obligations of Catholics with regard to this teaching.

The second part will describe the growth and development of the specific positions they have taken on abortion law, while the third part will analyze and criticize these positions from within the Catholic tradition itself.

How should bishops teach on public policy issues?

As a matter of fact Catholic bishops and leaders of most other church denominations throughout the history of our country have advocated for particular public policies.

From within the perspective of the Catholic church itself, the primary issue concerns how certain and authoritative is the teaching proposed by bishops on a specific public policy issue:
Are all Catholics called to follow this teaching, or is there room for disagreement within the church in these matters? Some have referred to this issue as involving the rightful freedom of the believer within the church.

The U.S. bishops explicitly addressed this issue in writing their pastoral letters on peace and the economy in the 1980s.

In writing their letter on peace, which developed through three different drafts, they explicitly wanted to be more specific than papal teaching had been in this area. At the same time, other national groups of bishops were also addressing the issues of peace, deterrence and war.

The Vatican under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger convened a meeting involving representatives of the different bishops’ conferences writing such letters and Vatican officials. One of the problems was the fact it seemed that different bishops’ conferences would probably take different positions on some of these specific issues, such as no first use of even the smallest nuclear weapon.

The memorandum from the meeting called for the bishops in their letters to distinguish clearly between moral principles and their application to concrete realities that involve the assessment of factual circumstances. The authority of the bishops on prudential judgments or the application of principles does not bind all Catholics.

There is room for legitimate diversity in the church in the area of prudential judgments.

In keeping with this memorandum, the U.S. bishops’ document “The Challenge of Peace” (1983) distinguishes different levels of moral discourse and teaching authority -- universally binding moral principles (e.g., no direct killing of noncombatants), the teaching of the popes and the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and the application of moral principles involving prudential judgments based on specific circumstances that can be interpreted differently by people of goodwill.

Such prudential judgments are not binding in conscience on Catholics but should be given serious attention by Catholics in forming their moral judgments. The pastoral letter on the economy in 1986 made the same distinction. The bishops in this letter make many prudential judgments that do not have the same authority as the declaration of principles.

The basic reasoning behind distinguishing these different levels of moral discourse and different levels of teaching authority is evident. All recognize that prudential judgments taking into account many different circumstances and their interpretation cannot claim to arrive at moral certitude. 

Thus the teaching of the bishops in these areas recognizes that other Catholics and people of goodwill might come to different conclusions. A contemporary example of this would be immigration reform. 

I basically agree with what the bishops have said, but I would also claim, invoking the position of Thomas Aquinas, that some more specific principles can also admit of exceptions. But such a discussion lies beyond the parameters of the present topic.

Another question arises: Should bishops support particular candidates or even political parties? Here the bishops have been both clear and consistent. 

Prior to every presidential election beginning in 1976, the Administrative Board of the bishops’ conference has come out with a document on how Catholics should address the coming election. They have made it very clear from the beginning that they do not endorse any political candidates. 

In the document preceding the 1988 presidential election, they made one significant change. In 1984 some individual bishops certainly gave the impression of opposing a particular political candidate. The document for the 1988 election insisted that the bishops neither endorse nor oppose a political candidate. 

In addition they have consistently maintained that they do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc.

The reasoning behind such positions against supporting a particular political candidate or party and not wanting to form a voting bloc are obvious. The bishops have recognized that on one particular issue there is legitimate room for diversity among Catholics. 

A candidate takes stands on all the issues involved in political debate. In such circumstances there is clearly much room for the freedom of the believer and no one in the church can authoritatively demand that all Catholics support a particular political candidate. 

All the more so the bishops do not want to form a voting bloc or support a particular political party.

US bishops on abortion law

There is no doubt the primary involvement of the U.S. Catholic bishops in public life in the last part of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century focused on abortion. 

The bishops as a national body and as individual bishops in their own diocese have spent more time, energy and money on abortion than on any other single issue.

Three reasons explain this emphasis. 

First, the Catholic moral position has consistently and for a very long time taught that direct abortion is morally wrong. The teaching recognized a very few conflict situations in which indirect abortion could be acceptable for a proportionate reason, but these situations were very narrow and did not even include abortion to save the life of the mother.

Second, in the last 50 years abortion has been the most controversial public policy issue in our country. In the 1960s, efforts were made to legalize abortion in a number of different states, but the bishops as a whole did not publicly insert themselves into opposition to these attempts. 

In fact a number of the early opponents to relaxing abortion laws in the 1960s were Catholic laity who even complained about the lack of support from clergy and bishops. With the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, abortion became a very public national issue and the United States bishops became the best-known opposition to this court decision. 

Beginning in the 1976 presidential election, abortion often became a very significant issue in political contests. In the political arena, controversy also arose between the bishops and many Catholic politicians who were pro-choice.

A counterprotester holds a sign in front of the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the March for Life in Washington in January 2009. (CNS/Bob Roller)Third, in this political context the public media paid more attention to the bishops’ position on abortion law than to any other position they took on public policy matters. 

As mentioned previously, the U.S. bishops had taken what could only be called politically liberal positions in their pastoral letters in the 1980s on peace and the economy. These pastoral letters received considerable media coverage at the time, but after a while they were no longer news.

However, the abortion issue remained on the front burner since it came up in every national and state election, and also involved the controversy between Catholic bishops and some Catholic politicians. But there have been significant changes and developments in the position of the bishops over the years with a trajectory toward a hardening of their position as time went on.

In the years immediately after Roe v. Wade in 1973, the U.S. bishops adopted a plan calling for three efforts: 1) an educational, informational program to heighten opposition to abortion directed at Catholics and at the general public; 2) a pastoral effort to support and supply the needs of all pregnant women; 3) a public policy effort aimed at a constitutional amendment providing “protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.”

Within the staff of the bishops’ conference and among the bishops themselves, some feared that the emphasis on abortion, especially the call for organized political activity, would make the Catholic church into a single-issue voice and put into the shadows Catholic teaching on many other issues involving peace, social justice, and opposition to violence-wielding right-wing regimes in South America.

This group was influential in having the Administrative Board of the bishops’ conference issue a document on political responsibility before the 1976 presidential election. This document, “Political Responsibility: Reflections on an Election Year,” insisted the bishops did not want to form a voting bloc or tell Catholics how to vote.

Voters should examine the candidates on a full range of issues, and with a consideration of the candidates’ integrity, philosophy and performance. The document lists eight issues in alphabetical order, beginning with abortion, but does not give priority to any of these issues.

In the 1980s the bishops as a whole moved toward a comprehensive and consistent approach to all the life issues under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. Bernardin had been the first general secretary of the bishops’ conference (1968-72); the president of the conference (1974-77); and the chair of the committee that wrote the pastoral letter on peace.

In 1983 he became chair of the bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities. Beginning with the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University in New York in 1983, and in nine subsequent public lectures, he developed his consistent ethic of life approach. War and abortion are intimately connected.

Catholic moral teaching is based on the dignity of the human person and the principles based on this foundation of human dignity apply across the board to all life issues.

But Bernardin was also very conscious of the political ramifications of his position. He did not want either political party to hijack the Catholic church for political purposes.

The Catholic position on many social issues fell on the liberal side as understood in contemporary American politics, and the opposition to abortion fell on the conservative side. Emphasizing the primacy of abortion tilted the church toward the Republican side.

However, some influential individual bishops did not agree. At a press conference in New York in 1984, Archbishop John J. O’Connor said in reference to a question about Mario Cuomo’s position on abortion that in his personal opinion a Catholic could not in conscience vote for an individual who favors abortion.

Later that year he publicly disagreed with Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, a Catholic who was running as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, over the issue of abortion law.

Also, Archbishop Bernard Law of Boston before the 1984 election called abortion the critical issue and claimed that Catholic politicians were wrong in claiming that they could support free choice as a public policy while being personally opposed to abortion.

Things changed in the 1990s. The documents before the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections repeated the general approach of the past urging Catholics to consider candidates in light of the full range of issues based on the consistent ethic of life, but abortion is now described as the fundamental human rights issue of our day.

At their semi-annual meeting in November 1998, the U.S. bishops issued a lengthy document, “Living the Gospel of Life.” Abortion and euthanasia are pre-eminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental of human goods.

All other rights are illusory if the fundamental right to life is not defended with maximum determination. You cannot build a house of rights on sand. The failure to protect and promote life at its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claim to “rightness” in other matters.

The document mentions “the consistent ethic of life,” but dramatically changes the meaning originally proposed by Bernardin.

The consistent ethic of life means that opposition to abortion does not mean indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. But being “right” in all these other areas, including racism, poverty, employment, education, housing, health care and capital punishment can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life.

In the first decades of the 21st century a new aspect of the abortion issue came to the fore. Some individual bishops declared that pro-choice Catholic politicians should not receive Communion at the Eucharist and that they should be refused Communion if they presented themselves.

In September 2003, the bishops set up a blue-ribbon committee to study the relationship of bishops and Catholic politicians. On the basis of a preliminary report of the committee, the bishops declared that killing an unborn child is intrinsically evil and to make such an intrinsically evil action legal is wrong.

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor pro-choice Catholic politicians or provide them with a platform. But the bishops as a whole could not agree on denying Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians and left the matter to the decision of the individual bishop in his own diocese.

A solid majority of bishops opposed the denial of Communion to Catholic politicians.

The document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States,” in preparation for the 2008 presidential election, differed markedly in length and substance from the previous ones.

The intentional taking of human life is intrinsically evil and a legal system that violates the basic right to life is fundamentally flawed. No prudential judgments are involved in the case of abortion.

The bishops repeated their new understanding of the consistent ethic of life, which is a middle position between the two extremes of making all issues morally equivalent and the opposite extreme of reducing the Catholic approach to only one or two issues.

One must oppose the destruction of innocent human life, but one cannot ignore other threats to human life and dignity -- racism and discrimination, the death penalty, unjust wars, torture, poverty, health care, and immigration, which all involve serious moral challenges. However, in these areas prudential judgments are needed to apply specific principles to particular issues. 

The applications of principles and prudential judgments made by the bishops do not have the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings, but Catholics should still listen carefully to them. 

Thus the bishops now give a reason to show why their opposition to legal abortion is the primary social issue and differs from all other social issues that they have discussed.

They go on to insist that Catholics are not single-issue voters, but they nuance this somewhat. 

A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for illegal abortion or racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support. 

A Catholic voter cannot vote for a pro-choice politician if the voter’s intention is to support that position. But a Catholic who rejects this unacceptable position may decide to vote for the candidate for other morally grave reasons.

The historical record thus clearly shows that the U.S. bishops have changed their approach to abortion law over the span of 40 years. 

They now clearly state that abortion is the primary issue. They also have explicitly stated the reason why this issue is primary and differs from all the other areas of social issues that they have addressed. 

Other issues of public policy and law involve prudential judgments, but in the case of abortion laws they deal with something that is intrinsically evil and does not involve prudential judgments. Catholics have certitude on the abortion law issue.

Analysis and criticism

In my judgment, the U.S. bishops claim too great a certitude for their position on abortion law and fail to recognize that their own position logically entails prudential judgments so that they cannot logically distinguish it from most of the other issues such as the death penalty, health care, nuclear deterrence, housing. 

Consequently they are wrong in making abortion the primary social issue for the Catholic church in the United States. 

This section will develop four reasons to prove the thesis that the bishops have claimed too much certitude for their position on abortion law -- the speculative doubt about when human life begins; the fact that possibility and feasibility are necessary aspects involved in discussions about abortion law; the understanding and role of civil law; and the weakness of the intrinsic evil argument.

Speculative doubt about when human life begins

In the Catholic tradition and to this day hierarchical Catholic teaching recognizes speculative doubt about when the soul is infused or when the human person comes into existence. 

Thomas Aquinas is the best- known theologian who held for delayed animation, although he still opposed abortion. 

Others dispute why Aquinas held his position. One approach emphasizes that Aquinas’ position was based on the faulty biology of his day. Aquinas and his scientific contemporaries knew nothing about the female contribution to procreation with fertilization occurring in the union of the sperm and the ovum.

The Latin word for the womb was nidus -- the nest. The sperm was deposited in the nest and then had to grow and develop. With the advent of modern biological knowledge, Aquinas would have changed his own position. 

But an opposing view sees Aquinas’s position of delayed animation as based on his philosophical understanding of hylomorphism, which sees matter and form as the constitutive causes of a being. 

The matter has to be suitable and capable of receiving the form. From the very beginning, the matter of what we now call the fetus is not apt or suitable for receiving the human soul. Some growth and development are necessary before the human soul can be infused.

The 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explicitly acknowledged the speculative doubt. The declaration purposefully leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. 

“There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” 

The document recognizes this as a philosophical problem, but it suffices that the presence of the soul is probable because one cannot take the risk of killing a human person. 

Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae also recognized the speculative doubt. 

However, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of an attack aimed at killing the embryo. 

Supporters of this position have often used an analogy to explain why the benefit of the doubt must be given to treating the early embryo as a truly human being. If a hunter sees something moving in the brush and she is not sure if it is a deer or a human person, the hunter cannot shoot. The benefit of the doubt must be given to the human person.

On the contemporary scene, Nancy Pelosi said on television that she was an ardent Catholic and pointed out that the doctors of the church such as St. Augustine were not able to determine when life begins. 

The chairs of two important committees of the U.S. bishops responded that there were disputes about animation in the Middle Ages, but contemporary scientific knowledge about fertilization occurring with the union of the sperm and ovum makes the older biological theory obsolete. (Note that they say nothing about the philosophical theory.) 

The two bishops contended that from the moment of conception, each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person. In light of what was mentioned above, their conclusion is accurate but not totally forthcoming.

Thus the most accurate way to state the Catholic moral teaching is that direct abortion even of a fertilized ovum is always wrong, but you cannot say it is murder. There is doubt about the reality of the early embryo. 

Thus the Catholic teaching on the morality of abortion is not as certain as its teaching on other issues such as murder, torture or adultery. In making the moral case against abortion, there is need for a further argument based on the principle that in doubt one must give the benefit of the doubt to the existence of a truly human being.

Feasibility and possibility 

Second, the role of feasibility and possibility are present in all questions of law and public policy. An old saying says that the two things one should not watch are sausage-making and lawmaking! Politicians in our country from the president on down have to recognize this reality and often have to be willing to settle for half a loaf rather than none.

To their credit, the U.S. bishops have recognized some role of possibility or feasibility in passing a law against abortion. In the 1975 Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities and in two later publications of the same basic plan, the bishops call for protection for the unborn child “to the maximum degree possible.” 

In 1981 the president of the bishops’ conference testified before Congress in support of the Hatch amendment. 

The Hatch amendment did not attempt to repeal Roe v. Wade, but would send the issue of abortion to the Congress and to the states to decide. Strong pro-life supporters and many Catholics among them were upset with the position taken by the bishops.

They wanted to repeal Roe v. Wade and would settle for nothing less. Under the Hatch amendment, many states and probably even Congress itself would still allow many abortions to be legal. The president of the conference mentioned that the possibility of passing the Hatch amendment was a reason for supporting it. 

The feasibility and possibility of passing a law is without doubt a prudential judgment, and as the bishops themselves have recognized Catholics can and do differ over such prudential judgments. There is no certitude or even agreement about where to draw the line about what is feasible and possible.

Recently two Catholic scholars from different political persuasions have argued on the basis of their pro-life positions to support pro-choice Democratic presidential candidates. In 2004, James R. Kelly, a Catholic sociologist at Fordham University, wrote an article explaining why he as a pro-life Catholic was going to vote for John Kerry, the pro-choice Democrat. 

Kelly had come to the conclusion that while the Republican Party in general had supported the pro-life position, the party had done little or nothing to bring it about in practice. He concluded that nothing would happen to change the present policy in the future. 

He was voting for Kerry precisely because he (Kelly) was pro-life. Kerry and the Democratic Party would work to help poor people, and statistics showed that a disproportionate number of poor women had abortions.

In 2008, a similar position was taken by Douglas Kimec. Kimec described himself as a conservative Catholic who accepts the church’s teaching condemning artificial birth control and also as a conservative Republican who had worked in the Reagan administration. 

He was going to vote for Obama because Obama would do more to limit the number of abortions than his opponent. In theory one has to admit the role of feasibility and possibility in the discussion of abortion law as the Catholic bishops themselves have recognized.

In practice two Catholics from different political perspectives have concluded that support for the pro-choice position can prevent more abortions in reality than support for the pro-life position.

The understanding and role of civil law

In the Catholic tradition, there have been two different approaches concerning the role and function of civil law -- the older approach strongly influenced by Thomas Aquinas and the newer approach developed in the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II.

Thomas Aquinas understood civil law in light of natural law. Civil law either republishes the natural law (e.g., murder is a crime) or makes determined what the natural law leaves undetermined. Thus the natural law says automobile drivers should drive safely but the civil law determines speed limits. Human law is truly law and obliges only to the extent that it is derived from natural law. What is opposed to natural law is not a law but the corruption of law.

Aquinas, however, recognizes that morality and law are not identical. Civil law is ordered to the common good. Thus civil law should not legislate all the acts of all the virtues, but only those that affect the common good. In civil society today, for example, there is not and should not be a law against lying but there is a law against perjury. 

Aquinas also takes a further step based on his realistic understanding of human nature. 

Human beings are not perfect. Human law should suppress the most grievous vices from which most people are able to abstain, especially those harmful to others, because such laws are necessary for the good of society.

In another context Aquinas approves of Augustine’s practice of tolerating prostitution and not having a law against it. Civil law, imitating the way God has acted, can tolerate an evil such as prostitution in order to achieve a greater good or to avoid a greater evil.

Vatican II did not treat head on the question of civil law, but it addressed this question in the Declaration on Religious Freedom. In so doing, the document followed the theory proposed earlier by the American Jesuit John Courtney Murray. 

Paragraph seven of the Declaration on Religious Freedom discusses the juridical question of the role of law with respect to religious freedom and all political freedoms. The basic principle is that the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range. This requires that the freedom of the person be respected as far as possible and curtailed only when and insofar as necessary. 

Murray in his commentary on the document insists that secular experts may consider this to be the most significant sentence in the entire declaration. Freedom is the end and purpose of society and the political method par excellence whereby the other goods of society are to be achieved.

Society, however, has the right to protect itself against abuses. The criterion determining the proper intervention of coercive law is the public order, which has a three-fold content -- an order of justice, of public peace, and of public morality. 

The document and Murray in his commentary do not give any illustrations of such interventions, but it is not difficult to recognize how these criteria have functioned in American jurisprudence. If your religion calls for child sacrifice, civil authority on the basis of protecting justice in the form of basic human rights can and should prevent such sacrifice. 

If your religion calls for a 200-piece band to parade around a neighborhood at two a.m. on Sunday, the public peace is greatly disturbed. The criterion of public morality insists on the public aspect. One illustration of this in U.S. history, which is not without contention, was the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent Mormons from practicing polygamy.

The pope and bishops have used the Thomistic approach in dealing with the legality of abortion. 

In my judgment the religious freedom approach is the correct approach and since the Second Vatican Council should be used today by all in the Catholic tradition. Two significant differences come to the fore if one approaches abortion legislation from the religious freedom perspective. 

First, the religious freedom approach can be used to accept the present legal situation of abortion in this country or could also justify working to change the existing law.

The religious freedom approach starts with the principle of as much freedom as possible and as little restraint as necessary, with the criterion of public order justifying how and when the state should restrict freedom. Even those who hold that abortion involves the killing of a human being could argue there is no consensus on the issue in our society today. 

As a result, one could give the benefit of the doubt to the freedom of the woman. The prudential recognition that it is impossible to change the present law today makes the argument for accepting the present law on the basis of the religious freedom approach even more cogent.

On the other hand, one could use the religious freedom approach to justify arguments to change the existing law on the basis of the justice component of public order. The primary function of justice is to protect basic human rights, including the right to life, and therefore there should be a law against abortion.

For our present purposes, the fact that the religious freedom approach could justify either position regarding abortion law means that in light of the Catholic understanding, neither the bishops nor anyone else can claim certitude as to how Catholics should decide about abortion legislation.

A second important difference coming from the use of the religious freedom approach is that pro-choice necessarily is not the same as pro-abortion. The natural law approach maintains that pro-choice goes against the natural law teaching condemning abortion and therefore is by definition pro-abortion. 

The religious freedom approach recognizes the freedom and choice of the individual. Precisely in the area of religious liberty and the discussions in Roman Catholic theology in the centuries preceding Vatican II, the opposition to religious freedom arose because accepting religious freedom meant protecting, promoting and accepting false religions.

But the change in Vatican II recognized that one must respect the freedom of the person to choose in matters of religion. In this case, one is not supporting a false religion, but rather the freedom of the person to choose.

A theological analogy is apropos. God has given human beings our free will. All of us will use free will at times to commit sin. But God does not advocate sinning! A legal analogy is also helpful. Some people, including conservative Catholics such as William F. Buckley, have argued we should decriminalize hard drugs. 

They are not necessarily advocating the use of hard drugs, but they see this decriminalization as best for society.

By promoting pro-choice legislation with regard to abortion, one is not necessarily also pro-abortion, even though many women will use their freedom to abort. Earlier this paper mentioned a number of Catholics who support pro-choice legislation precisely because they are antiabortion. 

A truly pro-choice position will in actuality reduce the number of abortions. 

The more recent religious freedom approach to civil law thus shows Catholics can take different positions on abortion laws and that to favor the freedom of the woman is not necessarily the same as being pro-abortion.

The intrinsic evil argument 

Recently the bishops have made the argument that since abortion is an intrinsic moral evil, it thus differs from all other legal issues such as immigration, death penalty, human rights, or the first use of nuclear weapons. 

This is a faulty argument. 

The primary problem is that intrinsic evil is a moral term and not a legal term. The fact that something is an intrinsic moral evil has nothing to do with law or legality. 

Aquinas himself following Augustine was willing to accept no law against prostitution, which according to Catholic teaching is a morally intrinsic evil. 

Many states in our country do not have criminal laws against adultery, but Catholic teaching insists that adultery is an intrinsic moral evil. No Catholic bishops have campaigned to have criminal laws against adultery.

Thus the very fact that something is an intrinsic moral evil does not mean there should always be a law against it.

The Catholic bishops have very recently used this argument that there should always be a law against abortion because it is an intrinsic moral evil in order to distinguish their position on abortion law from their position on almost all other public policy issues.

The weakness of this argument once again undermines the position of the bishops wanting to see the public policy position on abortion as differing from public policies on most other issues.

To sum up my position, I will cite the quotation with which the respected French Jesuit Paul Valadier in his very recent book, La part des choses: Compromis et intransigeance, concludes his chapter on political morality.

“It is not the absence of all compromise but compromise itself that constitutes true morality in political matters” (my translation from the French).

The author of the passage cited by Valadier is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

In conclusion, the bishops have claimed too much certitude for their position on abortion law since decisions about the legality of abortion involve prudential judgments.

Consequently, on the basis of their own understanding of the nature of prudential judgments, the bishops logically cannot give priority to abortion over all the other social issues.

Unfortunately by giving such certitude and priority to their position on abortion law, the bishops have downplayed and de-emphasized the many other aspects of their teaching on social justice.

Fr. Charles E. Curran is Elizabeth Scurlock University Professor of Human Values at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

SIC: Spero/USA-INT'L

Distressing developments put Church of England at risk (Contribution)

This week, British bookies quoted odds on where the royal marriage between Prince William and Kate Middleton would be celebrated. 

St. Paul’s Cathedral was leading Westminster Abbey by a nose — but it turned out the latter won. 

Of course, there was never any doubt that the wedding would be in the Church of England; the English Monarch is the titular head of the Church and it is, after all, a Church by law established.

The more interesting question that English bookies might ponder is whether there will be anything left of the Church of England when the putative King finishes his reign? 

Judging by recent events, I should say: Not very likely.

Already more people worship weekly in England’s mosques than in the Church of England. And just a few days ago, five Church of England bishops — bishops, mind you, not priests — publicly announced their resignation and explained why they are heading to Rome.

The bishops’ joint statement (from Andrew Burnham, Keith Newton, John Broadhurst, Edwin Barnes and David Silk) said that they were “distressed by developments in faith and order in Anglicanism which we believe to be incompatible with the historic vocation of Anglicanism and the tradition of the Church for 2,000 years.”

You can say that again. 

Whether one examines liturgy, doctrine, or the trendy issues like women bishops and homosexual marriages, the reality is that the contemporary Anglican Church bears hardly any resemblance to the spirit of the 39 Articles of Religion that once defined this historic institution.

The five bishops praised Pope Benedict XVI, who last year established an apostolic constitution ( Anglicanorum Coetibus) and a new structure for Anglicans who’d had enough and wished to join the Catholic Church. 

The five bishops called Pope Bendict’s initiative “a generous response to various approaches to the Holy See for help and a bold, new ecumenical instrument in the search for the unity of Christians, the unity for which Christ Himself prayed before His passion and death.

It is a unity, we believe, which is possible only in Eucharistic communion with the successor of St. Peter.”

The bishops’ example will no doubt encourage other disaffected Anglicans, those who comprehend how far their Church has strayed from historic Christian teaching and who are uneasily pondering their own future. 

Indeed, the bishops’ statement invites company: “As bishops, we have evenhandedly cared for those who have shared our understanding and those who have taken a different view. We have now reached the point, however, where we must formally declare our position and invite others who share it to join us on our journey.”

As it happens, I read of the English bishops’ decision just as I was reading a 1933 book– Now I See by Sir Arnold Lunn, about his own decision to convert to Catholicism. 

It takes Lunn 250 pages to explain why he decided when he did, but I was struck not by the differences 80 years ago but by the essential similarities. 

Lunn sums his decision up best in these two sentences: “It was becoming difficult to resist the uneasy conviction that it was my duty to enlist in the ranks of the only army which could resist the universal disintegration of doctrine and of moral standards. Against the confused and shifting background of the modern world Catholic order is a rock of refuge for those who are tired of modern chaos.”

To which the five English bishops might mutter a muted but fervent “Amen.”

It was five years ago when I left the Anglican Church and was received into the Roman Catholic Church. Elsewhere, and at greater length, I have written about how Peter’s Rock first hove into view for this drowning protestant, and of what it felt like to finally clamber aboard. 

To the five English bishops, from whom I may never be fortunate enough to receive the Eucharist, I say “Welcome home,” and assure each that it is one of the rare decisions of my life for which I have experienced not a moment’s regret.

Ian Hunter is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario.

 

SIC: NP/INT'L

NOM, Catholic Church gear up to block civil unions

Any day now the Illinois General Assembly is expected to vote on civil-unions legislation. 

The governor has voiced his support, and a recent a Chicago Tribune poll showed 57 percent of the public favors the legislation. 

"I think we're awfully darn close," state Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, an openly gay lawmaker, told the Chicago Sun-Times recently.

And yet the three-year long effort to enact civil unions is by no means a done deal. In part, that's because the nation's largest anti-gay marriage organization and the Roman Catholic Church have stepped up efforts to derail the legislation.

The National Organization for Marriage ( NOM ) , based in Washington, D.C., is rallying opposition to the measure known as the Religious Freedom Protection & Civil Unions, or Senate Bill 1716.

"With support from Governor Quinn, gay marriage advocates are pushing for a vote on a bill to give same-sex couples all 'the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits' of marriage," said NOM in a recent letter to supporters. "We have a short window for action."

NOM's Illinois offensive comes at the same time the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the organization among "hate groups" for NOM's "repeated, groundless name-calling" against gays and lesbians, according to the Washington Post. 

Meanwhile, Cardinal Francis George has called upon lawmakers to reject civil unions. 

"Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the nature of marriage," he said in a press statement.

"Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage," the cardinal said.

In the statement, issued by the Catholic Conference of Illinois, the church's lobbying arm, George went on to argue, "There is an inherent conflict between this legislation and religious liberty."

The cardinal suggested that civil unions could require faith-based institutions to provide adoptive or foster-care services or an array of other social services to same-sex couples in civil unions. 

And, George said, the legislation does not protect small businesses if their owners do not wish to extend family benefits to employees in civil unions.

Still, the Illinois conference statement says the Church teaches that homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," according to its catechism.

But spokespersons from Equality Illinois, the state's largest gay-rights organization, and pro-LGBT Catholic activists said Cardinal George and his out-of-state allies are dead wrong and pastorally insensitive.

"NOM's attacks on proposed civil unions are as misleading as they are predictable, and I am appalled at the length to which NOM would go to harm our families," said Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, in a press statement.

"We are especially disturbed at the misleading statements by the [ conference ] and [ the cardinal ] that the law would force churches to recognize civil unions. The bill explicitly states: 'Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body,'" explained Cherkasov.

Consequently, faith-based clergy and various denominations are ''free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union,'' according to the bill.

Sure enough, civil unions enjoy wide support among people of faith. More than 300 ordained clergy have signed Equality Illinois' Faith Petition to legislators. 

The signers of the petition represent more than 270 congregations and seminaries from nearly 80 cities throughout Illinois.

Rick Garcia, Equality Illinois' director of public policy, went even further in voicing vexation about George. 

"The Cardinal is either misinformed on the nature of the bill or is lying," he told Windy City Times. 

"The bill has nothing to do with adoption, foster care or the status of marriage, and has everything to do with fairness for same-sex couples."

The cardinal's attempt to influence legislation and public policy is not the first time the Chicago archdiocese has tried to stymie civil-rights protections for gays. 

During the 1980's when Chicago's gay-rights ordinance came before the city's aldermen, the then archdiocesan chancellor released a letter opposing the statute. 

Ultimately, the effort failed.

"Let me put it this way," said Garcia, referring to church politicking. They don't have the influence they wish they had."

For his part, Harris told the Sun-Times, ''I'd say either [ George ] is being misinformed about the state of the law in Illinois or they're trying to make more of it than there really is.''

Pro-gay Catholic advocates voiced annoyance. Chicago's Rainbow Sash Movement took strong exception to Church hierarchy's foray into secular politics.

"Cardinal Francis George is a contradiction," wrote Joe Murray, RSM executive director, in a blog posting.

"On the one hand he claims that LGBT citizens who pay taxes, unlike the cardinal, should take the back seat when it comes to equal rights. On the other hand, he claims to promote the human dignity of all. This is not only a contradiction, it is a promotion of intolerance, over the reasonableness and fairness in a society that is based on justice."

The president of Chicago's Dignity chapter, Chris Pett, said he was struck most by Church reliance on scare tactics. Rather than address the issues, he said George introduces "fear about possible abuses."

Pett also took issue with the cardinal's theological reliance on natural law and sexual complementarity to argue against civil unions. 

"The generative nature of love is just as well reflected by same-sex couples in committed relationships" as couples in opposite-sex unions, he said.

For its part, Equally Blessed urged Illinois Catholics "not to be swayed by Cardinal George's attempts to mislead them about civil unions," adding, the faithful "understand that all families and all couples in loving, committed relationships should have the same legal protections and obligations."

As Chicago-based spokeswoman Nicole Sotelo explained, "Once again, the Cardinal has shown that Church leadership is out of touch with the needs and beliefs of Catholics," continuing, "We urge him to meet with people who would be helped by this bill, so that he can see just how important it is to the people he shepherds."

The Catholic offensive against civil unions brings together a brain trust of Catholic philosophical, theological and political thinkers. 

Cardinal George, for instance, has voiced support for the 2009 Manhattan Declaration, an interfaith manifesto for socially conservative Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

The declaration subtitled "A call of Christian Conscience" articulates a far-ranging, pious social agenda for life, marriage, and religious liberty.

The section on marriage, moreover, links the specter of polygamy with same-sex marriage. 

"We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct," the declaration states.

Citing "compassion" for "those so disposed" and "respect [ for ] them as human beings," the declaration, nevertheless, considers them to be "wayward." 

What does the declaration recommend? "Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to a 'more excellent way.'"

The Manhattan Declaration concludes with a call to civil disobedience: "Nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless same-sex immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know about it, about immorality and marriage and the family."

What's more, NOM's Robert P. George, Princeton University's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, served on the declaration drafting committee. 

Brian Brown, NOM's executive director and president of the board of directors, and Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the board, are declaration signatories. Professor George is NOM chairman emeritus. 

In other words, NOM's top leaders are Catholics.

"Isn't it ironic that the name used in the development of the atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project, which destroyed so many lives, is now taken up to do the same thing to gay people," said Charles Martel, board member of Catholics for Equality.

"No wonder one-third of Roman Catholics has left the Church," he added. "Those of us who remain know that attacks on gays stem partly from a closeted gay clergy," explained Martel. 

"Discomfort with acknowledging their sexual orientation plays out with distortions, lacking any genuine institutional transparency."

And he said, "Gay people are insulted every time we are told to be treated with compassion, which is the farthest from the truth, because we are attacked and told to be invisible every step of the way."

SIC:  WCNG/USA

Wikileaks reveals how U.S. reacted to Pope Benedict XVI's election at the Vatican

Apparently, not even the sophisticated U.S.  intellegence services were able to penetrate the walls of the Sistine Chapel. 

According to sensitive U.S. documents fed to the Wikileaks website and deemed illegal by the State Department, Joseph Ratzinger's papal election came as a total surprise.

The report was among a cache of a quarter-million confidential American cables over the past three years.

The not-so-top-secret documents show that the United States was expecting the first South American to rise to the throne of St. Peter's.

Italian right-wing newspaper il Giornale said on its website that American diplomats were thrown off by news reports.

Some top US Vatican correspondents said Ratzinger was an obvious candidate but wouldn't pass the first round of votes in the 2005 Conclave.

Other hotly-contested specifics of the Wikileaks dossier were released to top international news organizations.

The documents allege, among other things, that Saudi Arabia was pushing the United States to thwart a possible attack by Iran and that the U.S. believes North Korea provided Iran with nuclear missles that could be pointed at Western European capitals, like the Vatican's host city of Rome.

SIC: RR/INT'L

Pope makes five million euros from books

Pope Benedict XVI has made around five million euros (6.6 million dollars) from royalties on his books since he was elected pope in 2005, Vatican officials said on Friday.

Some 2.4 million euros of the proceeds will finance research on the pope's own theological teachings through a Vatican foundation in his name.

The Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI foundation was set up earlier this year to "promote research and studies on the thinking of professor Joseph Ratzinger."

The rest of the money will go to charity, officials said.

A book of interviews with Benedict in which he talks candidly about issues including sexuality and child abuse was released this week and is selling fast.

SIC: AFP/INT'L

Pope's charity arm on retreat for spiritual renewal

The Pope’s charity arm, the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, has scheduled a week-long spiritual retreat at the Marian shrine of Jasna Gora in Czestochowa, Poland to reinvigorate the hearts and minds of continental Europe’s Catholic aid workers. 

European Bishops and the Directors/Presidents of the continent’s diocesan Caritas and other Catholic charitable organizations are attending the spiritual excercises from 29 November – 3 December.

Monsignor Anthony Figueiredo, an official at Cor Unum told Tracey McClure that the spiritual exercises have been called for the last few years in response to Pope Benedict’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est. 

In today’s increasingly secularized world, notes Msgr Figueiredo, “people have distanced themselves from God and the faith is being snuffed out.” How do we get people back to know God? He wonders.

“Pope Benedict very strongly believes that it is through charity.”

“Christian charitable organizations have changed. In our time, there’s been a plethora of organizations which have grown in the last decades. But the very nature of charity is change. In the past, it was very much religious congregations - the sisters, the priests – who ran hospitals, nursing homes, aid agencies. And of course today we have a decline in religious congregations.”

Most people working in charitable fields now are lay people, Msgr Figueiredo points out.

“A Catholic charity (worker) is one who has the same sentiments as Jesus Christ… the heart of a Christian charity worker is to become as much as possible like the one we serve.” “We don’t look down (on those we serve); we don’t patronize… we become one. We put ourselves absolutely in their shoes.”

“We also need to be missionaries of Jesus Christ. And that’s really what we do in these spiritual exercises. For a week, we put people in front of Christ … we’re so busy, we have so many projects (to do)…we need to have time to put ourselves in front of Christ. When we do that, we find we are renewed, we’re reinvigorated, and we have more time for those we serve.”

SIC: RVR/INT'L

Fr Shay Cullen attacks Pope’s anti-condom stance

Nobel prize nominee Fr Shay Cullen has attacked Catholic theologians over their opposition to the use of condoms to control sexually-transmitted diseases, which had ‘‘brought much suffering on innocent men, women and children’’.

The Dublin-born priest, who is best known for his campaigning work against child trafficking and sex tourism, was commenting on Pope Benedict’s landmark acknowledgement that the use of condoms was sometimes morally justifiable to stop the spread of Aids.

‘‘If it is true that a piece of latex can be used to prevent the transmission of a death dealing disease and save lives now, then it was also true for the past decades.

What a shame we did not know it," said Cullen, head of the Preda Foundation, which rescues children who are abused in the Philippines. ‘‘Had the Church said it long ago, thousands of lives might have been saved," the Columban priest said.

The Pope’s position, which emerged in a book published last week, has been described as a shift in the Catholic Church policy.

‘‘Now that we are enlightened, those who campaigned against the condom as a means to prevent incurable HIV infection have to reverse the harm done and educate the people [who were]misled that it is reasonable and right to use condoms to prevent harm and save lives. Irresponsible, immoral or abusive sex acts must never be condoned," Cullen said.

He said that the Pope’s statement was ‘‘an acknowledgement of the long-held moral principle that we are bound to choose the lesser of any two evils [but] . . . needless to say, for the most of humankind, using a condom is not a wrong or evil act’’.

SIC: SBP/IE

Archbishop Ratzinger Failed to Deal with Suspected Pedophile Priest

New documents show how the former Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- and his successor Reinhard Marx failed to properly deal with a suspected pedophile. 

Despite massive allegations of abuse, the archdiocese allowed the priest to continue working with children. 

The priest H. had put a great deal of effort into his letter of application.

On a summer afternoon in 1980, he copied photos and articles from local newspapers and church newsletters and provided a comprehensive description of his dedicated work with the young people of Munich's parish of St. Johannes Evangelist, as a way of recommending himself for higher office.

He submitted his request directly to the head of the archdiocese at the time. 

He wrote "For the personal attention of His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger" on the envelope and delivered the letter directly to the addressee on the morning of July 31, 1980, as members of the Catholic parish recall today.

H. told colleagues in the rectory that, at the age of 32, he felt that he was getting a bit old to be an assistant priest; he now wanted to have his own parish. 

It appears that "His Eminence" dealt with the letter. 

At any rate, the disappointed priest later told members of his parish that Cardinal Ratzinger felt that H. should remain in his position at St. Johannes Evangelist for the time being, since the old priest was often ill and he was so popular among the young people in the neighborhood.

Shedding Light on Abuse Case

 

All of this occurred 30 years ago.

Today, previously unknown documents, as well as witnesses who confirm the delivery of the letter, are shedding new light on the case of the abusive cleric H., which first became public last March -- and also on the role of the current pope.

According to the allegations, during his tenure in Munich, Ratzinger did not give sufficient attention to the type of duties that were assigned to the alleged pedophile H.

Despite massive allegations of abuse levied against the priest, the archdiocese led by Ratzinger allowed H. to continue to be involved in church work with children and young people.

For months now, very little progress has been made in clearing up this case. This is partly because the current archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx, who the pope recently promoted to cardinal, swiftly decided that the matter was settled.

H. was transferred to Munich in January 1980 after he had apparently sexually abused a number of boys in his home diocese of Essen.

Under Ratzinger's leadership, the Munich archdiocese expressly approved H.'s transfer on January 15, 1980. It was decided that the cleric was to undergo therapy.

No Doubt

Recently discovered documents now show that there could have been no doubt in Munich about the priest's previous history. 

The head of personnel in Essen had informed Ratzinger's head of personnel by phone and in writing that, in regard to H., "there is a risk which has prompted us to immediately remove him from the parish." 

Furthermore, he said that "an official complaint has been lodged by members of the parish."

But his victims are still waiting in vain for a genuine clarification of the matter. Wilfried Fesselmann, for instance, who says that he was abused by H. in 1979, wrote to Pope Benedict XVI last May.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith replied: "Your request is being processed."

Since then, he has heard nothing from them.

The archdiocese of Munich is also reticent to comment on the case, despite the fact that Marx has pledged: "We want to do everything to clear this up -- we will not look away, play it down or point the finger at others."

"The fact that Archbishop Marx has now been made a cardinal," says Fesselmann, "seems like a reward for having helped the pope."

Indeed, Marx, 57, is currently the youngest cardinal in Germany.

In spring 2010, the Munich affair caused an enormous stir. It initially looked as if the abuse scandal would engulf Ratzinger personally.

After all, the pedophile who was accepted by him into the archdiocese in Munich was able to continue working there as a pastor for three decades and find new victims -- despite the fact that he was charged a fine and given a suspended sentence in 1986 for abusing schoolchildren.

Damage-Control Mode

Marx and his press office immediately went into damage-control mode: They said that Cardinal Ratzinger had merely taken part in the decision to accept H. in Munich for the purpose of therapy, and otherwise had no further knowledge of his subsequent work. 

According to the archdiocese, the former Munich Vicar-General Gerhard Gruber acted alone and solely assumes full responsibility.

But how likely is it that Ratzinger would have been left in the dark about H.'s case by his closest associates -- the vicar-general and the head of personnel?

Only two weeks after Ratzinger approved H.'s acceptance for therapy in Munich, the priest was again assigned to pastoral duties.

H. wrote in a résumé, which is currently in the archdiocese's files, that he had already been called upon to "help with pastoral care on Feb. 1, 1980" in the parish of St. Johannes Evangelist.

In order to convince Ratzinger that he should be given his own parish, the priest attached to his application a copy of a church newsletter from his current parish.

This included an article in which he proudly describes his accomplishments working with children and young people.

For instance, on April 4, 1980 -- in other words, less than three months after his transfer for disciplinary reasons -- he wrote about a pilgrimage that he had organized with "20 to 25 girls and boys."

'Athletic Ability'

In June, he wrote that "150 altar boys from the parishes of our deanery" held their main Munich gathering in his parish. 

In his article, H. delightedly praised the youngsters' "dexterity," "imagination" and "athletic ability" during sporting events in the "Altar Boys' Cup."

In a later issue of the church newsletter, a story on the priest informed readers that his "intensive spiritual counseling of children" had been instrumental in helping the church "triple the number of altar servers within two years."

The article also mentioned that, during religious instruction, he had helped "young people in particular" gain "a new appreciation of the joyous message of the Church" and had "enriched the tradition of children's religious services."

Is this what therapy for a pedophile looked like in the archdiocese of Munich in 1980, under the ultimate responsibility of Ratzinger?

This is a question that is now being asked by more than just the victims.

Examining 8,000 Files

Last week, Marx had his press office release a statement saying there have been no new findings in the Church investigation of H. According to the press release, Ratzinger knew nothing: "We have also found no letter from H. to Ratzinger in the files." 

Marx and his team find further inquiries from the outside to not be particularly helpful.

They still stand by the declaration made by the loyal vicar-general.

For them, the H. case is merely one of many anyway.

"We are currently having an external law firm examine 8,000 additional personnel files," said a spokesman.

SIC: SIO/INT'L

Prison Chaplains attack inhumane conditions behind prison walls

Prison chaplains have produced another grim report on conditions in the country’s prisons, saying violence and drug use continues to escalate in prisons and overcrowding is adding to inhumane conditions.

The report says “conditions in many of our prisons are an insult to the decency of any human being and an affront to the basic tenets of decency,” and they say a culture of conformity exists within the system which resists any criticism or challenge.

There are 27 prison chaplains, priests, religious and lay people, working in 14 prisons in Ireland. They work every day with men and women who are imprisoned, and their families.

Fr Ciarán Enright of the chaplaincy team in Arbour Hill Prison said, “It is frustrating and depressing to have to come out with similar reports year after year, with little or no sign of any positive action being taken by those in charge.” 

 

He said chaplains blame a politicisation of the criminal justice system, which is failing to address the real issue of crime and prevention.

Overcrowding got so bad this year that on one night during the summer 129 prisoners in Mountjoy had no beds to sleep in – and some did not even have a mattress to sleep on. In Wheatfield a 75 year old male prisoner was sleeping on a mattress on the floor. 

 

Up to four men can be placed in a cell with no toilet facilities - other than a chamber pot - the same space they have to live and sleep in.

The chaplains also highlight how leaks to the media concerning prisoners are destructive of their attempts to manage their sentences and to resettle in the community. They single out the management and leaks around the release of Larry Murphy as resulting in a “media circus” which fuelled fear and anxiety in society. 

 

The endangerment of a person’s life and the creation of unnecessary panic among the public is of concern to them.  In another incident this year, some media were waiting outside a hospital when a prisoner was escorted to an outpatient appointment.

On violence they state prisoners are under threat from inside and outside prison walls and “the most common form of attack is to use a blade to slash a prisoner’s face, leaving a long and permanent scar, often from ear to mouth.”

St Patrick’s Institution for young people and children (16 to 21) is highlighted as a cause of serious concern. Chaplains say:

• St Patrick's is in direct contravention of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which prohibits the imprisonment of children (under 18s) with adults. Protections, regulation and guidelines relating to children in institutional care do not apply in St Patrick’s.
• The Ombudsman for Children is explicitly prohibited from investigating complaints or allegation by young people in St Patrick’s
• One in four of the young prisoners are 'on protection' - locked up for 23 hours a day with nothing to do.
• The prison workshops for young people are described as “a waste of money providing no useful training”.

The report recommends the pressing need to explore non-custodial options for prisoners who have committed less serious offences. It concludes “Current prison policy is a disaster for both prisons and society.  Making our prisons safer and drug free is in everyone’s interest. The only obstacle is political will.”

 

SIC: ICBC/IE

Limerick priest critical of minimum wage reduction

The parish priest of one of the country's most socially deprived parishes has described the recent government proposals to cut the minimum wage by €1 as “obnoxious.”  

Limerick city South Hill parish priest, Fr Pat Hogan, said that the government's decision to cut the minimum wage from €8.65 per hour to €7.65 per hour under its Recovery Plan to rescue the Irish economy, “is yet again targeting the wrong people.” 

Fr Hogan claimed that, “Only two per cent of the workforce in Ireland is on the minimum wage and not only will this group be facing a 12 per cent cut but those in and around the minimum wage will see their pay reduced as well.” 

“I agree we need a new conversation on social welfare, given the huge budget deficit in Ireland, but it was terrible to listen to Ministers getting €200,000 a year defending this cut in the media when it is those Ministers who are responsible for the state that the country is in at the moment”. 

He added, “The way these people speak about people on the lowest incomes is just obnoxious.” 

Fr Hogan's comments came just moments after he encouraged the government not to abandon its regeneration policy for Limerick City. 

Last summer, he claimed, the people of South Hill needed the hope that comes with the Regeneration project claiming that “however slowly it comes it is needed for the people of Limerick city.”

SIC: CIN/IE

Pope says Catholic newspapers have 'irreplaceable' role

Pope Benedict XVI said the Catholic press has an irreplaceable role in forming Christian consciences and reflecting the church's viewpoint on contemporary issues.

Despite the crisis in print media today, the Catholic newspaper still has a vital role to play in diocesan communications, the pope said. 

He made the remarks Nov. 26 to members of the Italian Federation of Italian Weeklies, which represents 188 Catholic newspapers.

The pope said that while secular media often reflect a skeptical and relativistic attitude toward truth, the church knows that people need the full truth brought by Christ.

"The mission of the church consists in creating the conditions so that this meeting with Christ can be realized. Cooperating in this task, the communications media are called to serve the truth with courage, to help public opinion see and read reality from an evangelical viewpoint," he said.

A primary task of the Catholic newspaper, he said, is to "give voice to a point of view that reflects Catholic thinking on all ethical and social questions."

The pope said the printed newspaper, because of its simplicity and widespread distribution, remains an effective way of spreading news about local diocesan events and developments, including charity initiatives.

As "newspapers of the people," he said, Catholic papers can also favor real dialogue between different social sectors and debate among people of different opinions.

"By doing this, Catholic newspapers not only fulfill the important task of providing information, but also perform an irreplaceable formative function" in the education of "critical and Christian consciences," he said.

The pope said Catholic journalists should give witness to their faith in their work. Their success as Catholic communicators will depend above all on their personal relationship with Christ, he said.

 SIC: CNS/INT'L

Vatican-based foundation to promote study of pope's theology

With the pope's agreement and funding, the Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI Vatican Foundation has been established to promote theological studies on his writings and to reward promising scholars.

Msgr. Giuseppe Antonio Scotti, president of the foundation, said it was established with just over $3.1 million from the pope. 

The money represents part of the royalties from the publication of his books; the rest of his royalty income goes to charity, Msgr. Scotti told reporters Nov. 26.

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, retired papal vicar of Rome and president of the new foundation's scientific committee, said he hoped that someday the "Ratzinger Prizes" in sacred Scripture, patristics and fundamental theology "would be considered as something analogous to a Nobel Prize for theology."

The prizes and the conferences the foundation hopes to host should focus, like the pope's work, "on helping the truth, meaning and beauty of Christianity in relation to today's culture and society emerge," Cardinal Ruini said.

The activities of the Vatican-based foundation will be coordinated with those of a Germany-based foundation honoring the pope. The Joseph Ratzinger-Papst Benedikt XVI Stiftung was established in 2007 by a group of his former students.

Cardinal Ruini and other members of the scientific committee will draw up the specific requirements for submissions for the Ratzinger Prizes and will choose the winners, he said. 

The other members of the committee include two former secretaries of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, and Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints' Causes. 

Archbishop Luis Ladaria, current secretary of the doctrinal congregation, and Archbishop Jean-Louis Brugues, secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, also are committee members.

SIC: CNS/INT'L