Washington D.C., Mar 15, 2019 / 12:36 am (CNA).- A Catholic aid agency is asking Congress to maintain its commitment to international humanitarian funding, after the Trump administration proposed a federal budget that would cut foreign aid by 24 percen… […]
The University of Dallas (my alma mater) announced yesterday that it has selected Dr. Thomas S. Hibbs to serve as the school’s ninth president. “The first alumnus of UD to be president,” the press release stated, […]
Washington D.C., Mar 14, 2019 / 06:32 pm (CNA).- Catholic leaders released a statement this week in disagreement with the United States’ expansion of a policy that restricts asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
“We oppose U.S. policy … […]
Munich, Germany, Mar 14, 2019 / 05:27 pm (CNA).- Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising has announced that the Catholic Church in Germany is embarking on a “binding synodal process” to tackle what he says are the three key issues arising from the clerical abuse crisis: priestly celibacy, the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, and a reduction of clerical power.
Speaking at the conclusion of the plenary session of the German bishops’ conference on Thursday, Marx told reporters that the bishops had unanimously decided these three topics would be subject to a process of “synodal progression” that could lead to a binding, but as yet undetermined, outcome.
“The Church needs synodal progress,” the president of the German bishops’ conference asserted. “Pope Francis encourages this.”
The German bishops held their plenary session in the German town of Lingen from March 11 to 14.
Addressing journalists on the final day, Marx said the Church’s teaching on sexual morality has yet to account for significant recent discoveries from theology and the humanities. Also, he said, the significance of sexuality to personhood has not yet received sufficient attention from the Church.
Bishops “feel we often are unable to speak on questions of present-day sexual behavior,” Marx said.
The cardinal also said that the German bishops appreciate priestly celibacy as an “expression of the religious bond to God” and do not simply want to give up on it. But to what extent celibacy should always be an element of priestly witness is a question “we will determine” through the “synodal process,” Marx told the press.
Furthermore, Marx said clerical abuse of power constitutes a betrayal of the trust of people in need of stability and religious orientation. Therefore, the “synodal process” would be charged with identifying what measures must be taken to achieve “the necessary reduction of [clerical] power.”
The establishment of ecclesiastical administrative courts is one such step for which the bishops will in the near future draft a proposal.
As a first step on the proposed synodal path, Marx announced that the German bishops have decided to set up three preparatory working groups. The working group on “clerical power” is headed by Bishop Karl-Heinz Wiesemann of Speyer, the working group on “sexual morality” will be headed by Bishop Franz-Josef Bode of Osnabrück. The working group on “the priest’s way of life,” which will focus on celibacy, will be moderated by Bishop Felix Genn of Münster.
Interim reports are expected from all three by Sept. 13.
Referring to the German bishops’ four year “Würzburg Synod” from 1971 to 1975, which was charged with an implementation of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, Marx affirmed that the Church in Germany is “not starting at zero” in a synodal process, given the Würzburg experience, and various consultation processes undertaken by the German bishops in recent years.
The “synodal process” will involve consultations with the “Central Committee of German Catholics,” a lay organization that closely cooperates with the bishops’ conference, and will draw on outside experts.
Washington D.C., Mar 14, 2019 / 05:19 pm (CNA).- Troops enlisting and serving in the U.S. military will have to serve as their biological sex and are forbidden from transitioning to another gender, a new Department of Defense policy states.
The policy was announced in a memo that was obtained by the Associated Press March 12. The policy will go into effect April 12.
While not a ban on transgender persons in the military altogether, the new policy will presumably result in many transgender troops being discharged from the military if they wish to serve under a different sex, seek cross-sex hormones, or gender transition surgeries.
The new policy has additional rules regarding gender dysphoria, a condition where someone identifies as a different gender than their biological sex. Recruits with a history of gender dysphoria will not be permitted to join the military unless they can show they have been identifying with their birth gender for three years and have not transitioned to a different gender.
If someone in the military were to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, this new policy would not permit them medically or surgically to transition to a different gender.
Transgender individuals who are either already enlisted or under contract to join the military prior to the start of the new policy will be grandfathered in to the transgender policy introduced in 2016 by then-President Barack Obama. That policy permitted transgender troops, and allowed those serving in the military to change their gender marker and begin to transition genders.
Per the updated policy, exceptions would have to be made for transgender individuals to continue to access health care associated with their gender transition. Those with gender dysphoria will be permitted to serve as their identified gender.
According to the Department of Defense website, there are “many transgender individuals already are serving honorably in uniform,” and they will not be removed from the military.
“DOD policy prohibits involuntary separation solely on the basis of gender identity, and it seeks to protect the privacy of transgender service members,” says the website.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) said in a statement that the new policy was “bigoted” and a “stunning attack on the patriots who keep us safe and on the most fundamental ideals of our nation.”
There is no reliable data on the number of transgender troops in the military. Estimates suggest there could be as many as 10,000 transgender troops, with about 1,000 troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There are a little over 2 million members of the U.S. military.
Pelosi said that the House of Representatives would fight against this “discriminatory action, which has no place in our country.”
The Supreme Court ruled in January 2019 that President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender persons in the military was legal and could proceed. Trump announced this policy change in July 2017, in a tweet posted to Twitter. In that tweet, Trump said that there was “tremendous medical costs and disruption” associated with transgender troops.
The next month, the Pentagon announced a new policy that would permit transgender soldiers in the military, as long as they have not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and have not transitioned from their birth sex. Troops identifying as transgender would have to wear the uniform associated with their biological sex and would not be permitted to use facilities associated with their desired sex.
The new policy forbade individuals who have transitioned genders from serving in the military or joining the military.
When Trump announced the policy in 2017, a theology professor at the Catholic University of America said it was the “right decision.”
Those who identify as transgender are “people made in God’s image, and they deserve our compassion, and they deserve to be treated with dignity, but that doesn’t mean that they are fit for combat in the defense of a nation,” Dr. Chad Pecknold told CNA.
“Pope Francis is famous for his stress upon dialogue, and his non-judgmental approach with respect to the dignity of every person,” he said. “But the Holy Father has also been crystal clear that ‘gender theory’ represents a burning threat to humanity, starkly describing it as a ‘global ideological war on marriage’.”
Washington D.C., Mar 14, 2019 / 05:08 pm (CNA).- Federal legislation purporting to guarantee equality explicitly rejects religious freedom protections and would open the gates to anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious believers and institutions who disagree with the bill’s broad view of LGBT discrimination, critics said.
Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of Alliance Defending Freedom’s U.S. legal division, said the proposed Equality Act, reintroduced into the House of Representatives on March 13, would undermine “the fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience that the First Amendment guarantees for every citizen.”
She said “disagreement on important matters such as marriage and human sexuality is not discrimination.”
The Equality Act would add anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to existing protections for race, color, national origin, sex, disability and religion.
Waggoner compared it to similar state and local laws that would “force Americans to participate in events and speak messages that violate their core beliefs.”
About 20 states have such legislation. Besides combating mistreatment of self-identified LGBT persons, they have been invoked to shut down Catholic adoption agencies that only place children with a mother and a father or to compel people working in the wedding industry, like florists, photographers and bakers, to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies.
Critics have argued that the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity are too broad and will lead to rejecting appropriate recognition of difference between the sexes or differences between married heterosexual couples and other couples.
The legislation could endanger religious protections, particularly for those who believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. While U.S. law has historically allowed for broad religious freedom protections, those who disagree with same-sex marriage could be viewed as “discriminating” against a same-sex couple.
Though the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed with overwhelming support, such protections have recently drawn strong opposition from some lawmakers, pro-abortion access groups and LGBT advocates who contend they interfere with basic rights.
As drafted, the Equality Act explicitly removes the ability under RFRA to cite religious freedom as a defense against discrimination claims.
Tim Schulz, president of 1st Amendment Partnership, told the Deseret News that if the Equality Act becomes law, religiously affiliated schools and other faith-based organizations could face lawsuits over policies on self-identified LGBT students, customers or employees.
“There would be an effort to punitively sue them into oblivion,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a backer of the bill, said the legislation “clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used in civil rights contexts, prohibiting religious liberty — which is a core American value — from being used as a license to discriminate.”
The ACLU has long opposed Catholic hospitals that act according to Catholic ethics and refuse to provide “reproductive health” services including abortion and sterilization. In California, the legal group filed a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital for refusing an elective hysterectomy to a woman who identifies as a man and who sought the procedure as part of her putative sex reassignment.
It has also sided with efforts targeting institutions and small businesses that do not recognize same-sex unions as marriages. ACLU lawyers have backed a lawsuit against a Washington State florist who declined to serve a same-sex ceremony, while the group has tried to block Michigan state agencies’ cooperation with Catholic adoption and foster agencies.
Waggoner was critical of the Equality Act and predicted negative consequences if it becomes law.
“Americans simply deserve better than the profound inequality proposed by this intolerant, deceptively titled legislation,” she said.
“Our laws should respect the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of every citizen, but the so-called ‘Equality Act’ fails to meet this basic standard,” Waggoner added. “It would undermine women’s equality and force women and girls to share private, intimate spaces with men who identify as female, in addition to denying women fair competition in sports.”
The proposed law would apply not just to employment, but other areas like housing, jury duty, credit, and education. It bars discrimination in retail stores, emergency shelters, banks, transit and pharmacies, among others. It would also specify facility access for self-identified transgender persons, such as access to male and female bathrooms.
David Cicilline, D-R.I., is the bill’s main sponsor in the House, NBC News reports. As of March 13, the bill had 239 co-sponsors in the House.
“In most states in this country, a gay couple can be married on Saturday, post their wedding photos to Instagram on Sunday, and lose their jobs or get kicked out of their apartments on Monday just because of who they are,” he charged. “We are reintroducing the Equality Act in order to fix this.”
U.S. Sen. Susan Collins is the only Republican to back the bill, though she was one of four currently serving Republican Senators to back similar anti-discrimination categories in a 2013 employment bill.
The legislation’s 161 corporate sponsors include PayPal, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. Overall they have a combined revenue of $3.7 trillion, CNBC reported March 8.
Leaders with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have not yet commented on the Equality Act. However, in the past they have criticized the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar actions deemed to be employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
In May 2010, the bishops said the act “could be used to punish as discrimination what the Catholic Church teaches.” While they called for a “comprehensive religious exemption” to such a bill, there could be “government retaliation” for institutions that rely on such exemptions. Without strong protections, it would be applied “to jeopardize our religious freedom to live our faith and moral tenets in today’s society,” they said.
The bishops rejected “every sign of unjust discrimination,” while also stating that Catholic teaching cannot be equated with unjust discrimination.
Leading bishops criticized the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in an Oct. 31, 2013 letter to the U.S. Senate, saying it does not advance “authentic non-discrimination.” They warned that the bill’s vague definition of sexual orientation does not distinguish between homosexual “status” and “conduct.” Its concept of “gender identity” rejects the “biological basis of gender” and would give force of law to a view of gender as “nothing more than a social construct or social psychosocial reality.”
CNA investigations have found close to $10 million in spending that targets religious freedom protection, including funding for ACLU projects. Major backers of the campaign include the Ford Foundation, which gives out some $500 million in grants annually, as well as the Arcus Foundation, an LGBT advocacy group that also funds groups that reject historic Christian ethics on LGBT issues. The network of funded groups tends to argue that religious freedoms are too broad if they exempt objectors to “reproductive rights” and LGBT political and legal concerns.
Washington D.C., Mar 14, 2019 / 04:01 pm (CNA).- As part of a wide-reaching crackdown on the online sale of illegal drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned several online providers of abortion-inducing medications to stop the sale of unap… […]
An Average Jane gets into trouble, realizes she has been living an inauthentic life and tries to find out the truth about her past, whereupon she develops superhuman powers, and her hair turns blonde. Samuel […]
New York City, N.Y., Mar 14, 2019 / 03:18 pm (CNA).- The deeply influential Open Society Foundations has announced that Tom Perriello – a former congressman, pro-abortion rights gubernatorial candidate and co-founder of controversial Catholic political… […]
Austin, Texas, Mar 14, 2019 / 01:51 pm (CNA).- A recent study found that the number of abortions procured in Texas decreased 18 percent after the application of a 2013 law regulating abortion clinics.
Though the total number of abortions fell, the number of abortions procured during the second trimester increased.
A study published March 13 in Obstetrics & Gynecology found that second-trimester abortions increased by 13 percent while the total number of abortions declined by 18 percent following the implementation of a law regulating abortion clinic safety standards in 2013.
Texas House Bill 2 introduced two key regulations of abortion clinics in Texas: that abortion doctors had to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and that clinics had to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers.
HB 2, which was passed in July 2013 and resulted in the closure of about half the state’s abortion facilities, was struck down by the Supreme Court 5-3 in June 2016.
The March 13 study, conducted by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, examined the 12-month period before HB 2 was introduced and passed (November 2011-October 2012) and compared it to the 12 months after the law was implemented (November 2013-October 2014).
The research found there to have been a total of 6,813 second-trimester abortions performed before the law’s implementation, and 7,720 after.
Meanwhile, there were 64,902 abortions performed in the first 12-month period studied and only 53,174 in the second period after the implementation of the regulating legislation.
The study’s authors concluded that the regulations of HB 2, though overturned in 2016, caused delays in abortion access for Texas women, resulting in more second-trimester abortions, largely because of increased distance from an abortion clinic, and waits of three or more days for the initial state-mandated consultation visit.
The study found women in Texas, on average, waited one week longer for an abortion in the 12-month period after the implementation of HB 2.
The study was published as New York legislators in January passed the Reproductive Health Act, a law allowing abortions “within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or (when) there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.”
The state law removes the act of abortion from the criminal code and places it in the public-health code. It strips most safeguards and regulations on abortions and allows non-doctors to perform abortions.
The bill aimed to protect legal abortion in the event the U.S. Supreme Court overturns pro-abortion rights precedents.
© Catholic World Report