Probably the biggest news in the Church world this week was the announcement which all US bishops received yesterday from Cardinal Francis George that finally, after years of preparation, the new English texts for the Roman Missal have been approved by the Holy See and returned to all of the English speaking countries for printing, publication, and promulgation. Cardinal George in his message to the bishops said that in his capacity and role as president of the episcopal conference he was promulgating that the new translation of the texts used at Mass would be utilized starting on the first Sunday of Advent in 2011. So, the long and short of it is that you and I must begin to prepare ourselves for a new translation in English of texts which we have been using at Mass since the early seventies of the last century.

After the fathers of the Second Vatican Council decided that Mass could be celebrated in either Latin or in the language of every country in the world, the English speaking countries founded and financially supported an organization to translate the texts used at Mass from Latin into English. That organization was called the International Commission on English in the Liturgy or ICEL. Latin scholars and English technicians immediately set about to translate the texts used in the Missal on the altar at Mass into the vernacular of every country. There was enormous pressure to change at the time and the translation admittedly was rushed. The translators were allowed by the Holy See to use a translation technique called “dynamic equivalency” in translating which meant that they did not have to translate strictly but could use words and idiom of spoken language at that time. Or to put it more succinctly, both the Holy See and ICEL wished to present a translation which recognized that words change with time and a strict translation might not make sense to the hearer or reader. When published and approved by the Holy See, the translation we currently use served us well but if words can sometimes change and other words pass into disuse, then an updating from time to time was likely.

The bishops of the English speaking world began this updating about fifteen years ago and ICEL produced an absolutely magnificent translation of the Roman Missal which was passed by the US bishops conference by a vote of 235-32. But there was some controversy and the minority complained to Rome that they were not listened to in the debate in the US at least and Rome heard their complaint, refused to accept the new translation, and then amazingly did what the Council documents left to individual bishops’ conferences and changed the rules of translation from dynamic equivalency to a strict adherence to translating the Latin slavishly. The Holy See then ordered a new or third translation attempt, ICEL was radically altered and work begun on the Mass texts which you should be hearing and praying starting next November, 2011.  So, for example, the Latin et cum spiritu tuo which we have been rendering as and also with you is now to be and with your Spirit.

The changes which will be asked of our praying communities will not be a terrible burden, I think. They will take some getting accustomed to but so did moving from Latin followed by some Latin/English to total English in the Mass. If the praying Church did it in the late 1960′s and 1970′s, I am confident that the praying Church will do it again. Only time will tell if the new translation to be brought into being in fifteen months will stand the test of time as well as the current translation has. There are words being changed which will require catechesis on the part of all of us. We use the word offering at Mass but we will soon substitute oblation in its place. The latter is a stricter translation of the Latin. We need to teach our children and others the meaning of a word which is not in common parlance. Perhaps no big deal but change always comes with some pain.

The arguments among the bishops of this country on this translation wore most of us down but I can tell you that in the end, the Holy See did listen and accept many of the greater concerns of bishops who were uncomfortable with some of what was being proposed. I am personally at peace with the translation as I understand it will be coming to us and along with our priests, I will do everything I can to welcome this change, make it as palatable as possible, provide the necessary catechesis prior to implementation, and ready the parishes and chapels of this diocese for the First Sunday of Advent in 2011. I shall be returning to this subject often in the coming fifteen months. I hope we will be one of the best dioceses in preparing for and implementing the new missal. Now is the time and it falls to us as it fell to our parents as well as ourselves and our beloved Church in the late ’60′s and early ’70′s. As Christ said, be not afraid.

+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

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

After an opening Mass in the hotel, the bishops began their annual Fall plenary assembly by spending the morning in what are called “regional meetings.” Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina are all in “Region XIV” so the bishops of the twelve dioceses of those four states comprise the regional grouping. I know that one of the topics which the bishops were asked to discuss is the number of seminaries spread across the United States at this time. This discussion comes at a moment when it appears that vocations are on the rise and seminary enrollment is increasing. As I mentioned earlier here, St. John Vianney College Seminary opened in September with about 80 seminarians (the highest ever) and St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach opened with about sixty seminarians but a total enrollment of eighty is not more than a year or two away. Seminaries are expensive operations but there are strong regional arguments to be made for them (training future priests for ministry in Spanish to Hispanics, for example.) No one wants to close their seminaries in this country so I wonder tonight what suggestions may have come from the regional meeting discussions this morning.

The Plenary opened with an hour and twenty minutes of formalities including an address by Cardinal Francis George, our President, and the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi. These two talks have always been a part of the opening “ritual” for the meetings. Cardinal George began by speaking about the importance of priests to the ministry of bishops and painted a fine picture of what the Church might be like if there were no priests. He did this largely in the context of this being “the year for priests” as declared by Pope Benedict XVI. It was a fine reflection for we bishops about how important and vital our priests are not just to the Church which is obvious to all of our people, but to our own ministry as bishops.

The Papal Nuncio’s talk spoke about the qualities needed of the bishops in light of love for the Church. He opened with a long quotation from Pope Paul VI prior to his death about the gift of love from Christ to the late Pope in the Church. He then outlined three necessary qualities for bishops: fidelity (allowing here for some application of creativity in addition to preserving the treasury of the faith), prudence, and hope. He paid special tribute to a national meeting of Diocesan Vocation Directors recently held in Newark, finding the Directors to be impressive, resourceful and full of hope. Our own Father Len Plazewski is the President of the National Vocation Directors and God knows he reflects all those adjectives. The Nuncio ended his remarks by sharing a letter which he received from a priest asking for the appointment of “more positive” bishops. “Check, Archbishop. And thanks for your remarks.”

The rest of the afternoon was given over to the introduction of the “action items” which the bishops will begin to debate and vote tomorrow morning. The assembly had only ninety minutes, max, to submit formal amendments to the Action Items.

Finally, my successor as Chairman of the Board of Catholic Relief Services, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, gave the assembled bishops a wonderful picture of CRS today, along with a stirring four minute video. The archbishop noted that only 22% of Church-going Catholics could identify CRS as the Church in the US’s overseas disaster relief and development agency.

Cardinal George asked the bishops assembled to support a statement which he wished to make on health care reform. We’ll download that statement for you here as soon as it is available.

+RNL

Update: Cardinal George’s Statement is now available at the USCCB website for this year’s November meeting, or you can access it directly.

Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and currently President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has written a new book entitled The Difference God Makes. It will make its first appearance in the United States this Wednesday and I have already ordered a copy from one of the on-line booksellers. Cardinal George has assembled in the book a selection of his speeches, homilies and writings and because I have such respect for his intellect and theological insight I look forward to reading the book when it arrives.

The “mother” of all Catholic blogs, Whispers in the Loggia excerpted just enough the one section of the book to make me want to read the whole thing. In the section, the Cardinal writes about the two extremes in an ever more polarized church, the liberal Catholic “wing” and the strident, ardent right or conservative wing. The Cardinal is quoted as saying that liberal Catholicism is all but dead, a thing of the past and the strident right wing  is alive and poses a great challenge for the Church as it risks the formation of independent Churches (think in the extreme of the schismatic movement begun by Archbishop Lefevbre). So I have been thinking and ruminating about both.

Liberal Catholic movements have generally not lasted or succeeded. In my lifetime start-up movements like Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful, etc. have risen to challenge the Church (not always in unhealthy ways – VOTF started in Boston during the height of the clergy misconduct scandal to seek more accountability of bishops and other Church leaders). They make their point strongly, seldom  though occasionally go for the jugular, and then seem to pass into relative ecclesial anonymity. Basically the Church stands them off by ignoring them and the people in the pew remain steadfast in their faith. Remnants exist and I think these are healthy influences, The Church’s leadership tends to be centrist in most things, tolerant in some, and slow to embrace almost any new cause for reform, which I think is the right place to stand. As long as things don’t get vicious or personal,  we listen.

The extreme right can sometimes also go for the jugular and they are less likely to give up than the “liberal” wing. Even though the Holy Father used to be sheltered from their criticism, now they are just as likely to go after him. Bishops have long been their targets and while most of us understand it “comes with the territory”, it can still sting. When they don’t seem to be getting their way, there is a tendency now to “splinter” off. Particularly  neuralgic issues tend to be matters of liturgy and worship and pro-life.

Anyway, I look forward to reading the Cardinal’s full exploration of the subject when the book arrives. It is not my intention to start a competition with Oprah on our “book of the month club” but with this I have here recommended two: WHY GO TO CHURCH by Timothy Radcliffe, OP and now THE DIFFERENCE GOD MAKES by Cardinal Francis George, OMI.

+RNL

On the day after the inauguration of a new president, many in the nation will pause and pray on the occasion of a tragic national anniversary. On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court did the previously unthinkable – it found a new right never before discovered or defined in the near two hundred years of the U.S. Constitution – a personal right to privacy. Thus began a period of federal protection for abortion and a legal hostility to pre-born life in the womb. It is said that Chief Justice Warren Burger later came to deeply regret that he had participated in the majority opinions of Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton but it makes little matter now. Each year, millions of pre-born children die in their mother’s womb.

Prior to 1973, abortion on request existed in many of the states but there were other states where the moral concerns of the citizenry made abortion illegal. In one fell swoop of the pen, the real “Supremes” of the period made abortion a federally, constitutionally protected right and took the matter out of the hands of state legislators, governors and the people themselves. What there was of a pro-life movement at the time was not caught by surprise but overwhelmed by the argument guaranteeing abortion on request – anything goes in the first trimester of pregnancy, very limited protection of the preborn child in the second and grudgingly in the third the state could if it so chose to do so offer some limited protections to the new life. Over the years, the federal courts have generally erased the fallacious trimester division of pregnancy and made  it “anything goes at any time.”

In the intervening years the pro-life cause has had some successes, some failures and some instances where the jury is still out. On the successful side of the ledger, legislation has been passed and protected (legally) outlawing the horrific “partial birth abortion” procedure. That was a significant moment. When the Republicans occupy the White House, federal funds can not generally be used to pay for abortions and they are forbidden in federal hospitals but enter the Democrats and executive orders to the contrary are issued. Some of the states have been successful in passing and sustaining requirements prior to the performance of an abortion which cut down on the number somewhat (parental notification, for example) but even the present “conservative” Supreme Court can not always be counted on to support these legislative initiatives.

Catholics embrace “abortion on request” in the same percentage as the general population. That is a painful reality to Church leadership and the pro-life movement. Elections become a time of bitter and frenzied activity and in their wake, elections are followed by recriminations, anger and frustration. Abortion has become so highly politicized an issue that it is seldom spoken of from the pulpits of our Churches. Bishops speak but who listens?

In 1973 the bishops of the United States asked me to found a national pro-life organization which might help shape the national debate in favor of a “Human Life Amendment” to the United States Constitution. The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment still exists but today as a nation we are no closer to protecting human life in this manner than on the day after Doe. I believe that Catholics, like others, are increasingly turned off by the shrillness of the debate and so it is becoming harder and harder to teach the core issue – the dignity of life in the womb which is in need of protection.

Polls consistently show that regular Church-going Catholics oppose abortion-on-request at a much higher percentage than those who simply indicate that they were baptized Catholic but do not practice. Getting more of the baptized to attend Mass and become more closely attached to their Church and its long-held belief that human life begins at conception then becomes not only a pastoral priority but it also might just have political consequences. Nothing is going to change in this country without a common, majority consensus that abortion kills an innocent child already forming in their mother’s womb in the image and likeness of God. It seems to me sometimes that we ask those in elected office to accomplish what we ourselves have been unable to do.

Most laws in the history of this nation become so much a part of the fabric of life so quickly that the citizenry soon forgets them, their positive and negative effects,  and life goes on. This is often correctly referred to as “the educative effect of law.” Not so with abortion. Thanks to in large part the pro-life movement which never gives up, this anniversary will be noted as those before it, with prayers, marches, demonstrations, etc. As long as an innocent child is dying because of abortion on request, we will never say die.

Logic and reason and indisputable science will ultimately carry the day on this matter; ecclesiastical penalties and sanctions will only inflame and exacerbate those within our religious communion who have not yet embraced the pro-life cause. I believe that this was proven in November. Cardinal George was “spot-on” in his presidential speech in November when he reminded us that bad, immoral laws do not always stand the test of time – Dred Scott for example. It was the nation that educated the Court in that one and not vice versa. Let us pray that we may have the same opportunity in our lifetime.

+RNL

You will recall that I mentioned in previous posts that the bishops spent some time on Monday and a good amount of time yesterday working with Francis Cardinal George, our President, on drafting a statement from the Cardinal in light of the recent election. This morning Cardinal George presented his statement to us. I will attempt to type his entire statement below (keep in mind that my less than nimble fingers are attempting to retype this somewhat long but excellent statement:)

“If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil.” (Psalm 127:1)

The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historical transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all. Because of the Church’s history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad. The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.

The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see in this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA] was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any “interference” in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated. The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.

FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives has been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.

This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops, who also want to thank all those in politics who work with good will to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. Those in public life do so, sometimes, at the cost of great sacrifice to themselves and their families; and we are grateful. We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation. The common good is not the sum total of individual interests; it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.

Our prayers accompany President-elect Obama and his family and those who are cooperating with him to assure a smooth transition in government. Many issues demands immediate attention on the part of our elected watchman. May God bless him and our country.

So ends the statement of Cardinal George. Of this much I am sure, I shall not be retyping long statements until this blog provides me with the ability to cut and paste and conduct a spell check (currently unavailable to me).

I am proud of this statement and it perfectly reflects my own feelings and hopes at this moment in our nation’s history. During the election, the President-elect never deviated from his main message: “Change and hope.” I pray that he will not change the nation’s present approach to abortion-on-request to something far worse and I hope that he will understand that there are many of us out here who hold deep religious and conscience convictions on this important issue.  I hope that he will surprise and not disappoint. I pray that he will lead and not be led by those intent on the destruction of human life. Our nation needs to be united not further fractured.

This final afternoon will be spent in prayer, adoration, and reconciliation. At 6:15pm I begin my return to my beloved diocese on AMTRAK’S “Silver Meteor” and perhaps somewhere around Richmond at 10pm tonight, I will tell you more about the meeting and my train ride. There will be little that is “meteoric” in my return.

+RNL