Bishop Barron responds to criticism over participation in Religious Liberty Commission

Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2018 / 12:08 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Catholic health care must remain Catholic, even in instances of collaborations or mergers with non-Catholic institutions, say new directives from the U.S. bishops.

The sixth edition of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services was “overwhelmingly accepted” by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) at their spring meeting in Fort Lauderdale, said Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, who chairs the USCCB’s subcommittee on health care, which was responsible for compiling the new directives.

Overall, the directives deal with a myriad of issues, including health care at the beginning and end of life, as well as pastoral and spiritual responsibilities of Catholic health care institutions to their patients.

The new edition includes multiple updates to the sixth section of the directives, which deal with collaborative arrangements with other health care organizations and providers, whether those are Catholic or secular.

The new and updated directives are a result of four years of study and consultation with the Vatican and with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, McManus told CNA.

They clarify, among other things, that Catholic health care institutions must maintain their Catholic identity and provide care consistent with Church teaching even in instances when they collaborate or merge with other healthcare institutions.

“The rule of thumb is a Catholic hospital in partnership with a non-Catholic hospital cannot formally cooperate with doing evil,” Bishop McManus said. Formal “cooperation (with evil) is always eliminated, it cannot be done.”

The directives state that formal cooperation with evil happens “not only when the cooperator shares the intention of the wrongdoer, but also when the cooperator directly participates in the immoral act….(and) may take various forms, such as authorizing wrongdoing, approving it, prescribing it, actively defending it, or giving specific direction about carrying it out. Formal cooperation, in whatever form, is always morally wrong.”

Material cooperation, on the other hand, occurs when “the one cooperating neither shares the wrongdoer’s intention in performing the immoral act nor cooperates by directly participating in the act as a means to some other end, but rather contributes to the immoral activity in a way that is causally related but not essential to the immoral act itself. While some instances of material cooperation are morally wrong, others are morally justified,” the directives state.

Material cooperation is never justified in actions that are “intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization,” the directives state. Other situations of material cooperation may be more morally complex.

According to the bishops: “Reliable theological experts should be consulted in interpreting and applying the principles governing cooperation.”

Another important consideration in situations of collaborations and mergers is the principle of scandal, McManus said.

“Theological scandal, strictly speaking, means that I cannot do or say something that might cause someone else to enter into sin,” he said.

“So even if there is cooperation that has been justified by (as) material cooperation, if that might cause scandal, even after attempts to explain why a Catholic and non-Catholic institution are partnering, if there is the reality of scandal, that has to be avoided,” he said.

The directives also clarify the role of a bishop in overseeing collaborations of Catholic and non-Catholic institutions.

Joe Zalot, a staff ethicist with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told CNA that these directives are necessary because health care collaborations are increasingly common, and can create complex situations when determining who has authority over these entities.

“Basically what’s happened is that many of the Catholic hospitals, historically they were founded and run by religious orders, particularly women’s religious orders, and as those orders are literally and figuratively dying out, there were not enough sisters to administer them,” Zalot said.

As a result, some Catholic health care institutions are now overseen by what are called juridic persons in canon law, which are legal entities recognized by the Vatican. Because these juridic persons exist within a diocese, or in some cases multiple dioceses, the local bishop or bishops share responsibility in ensuring the Catholic identity of these entities, Zalot said.

“What these directives are doing is recognizing that fact and trying to define the role of the bishop in terms of Catholic health care entities in his diocese. Essentially the bishop has oversight of what happens in his diocese,” Zalot said.

“What the bishops are saying is not new. What they’re doing is clarifying the role of the bishop in terms of Catholic entities in (their) dioceses,” he added.

Zalot said that for the most part, these directives usually do not pose problems for Catholic institutions that seek collaboration with non-Catholic ones.

“What (the bishops) are concerned with is ensuring the identity of the Catholic institution remains, even within these mergers. And actually it does happen, we see it, there’s hospitals that have been merged into or bought by a secular institution. But one of the elements of the contract or the purchase agreement is that these institutions remain Catholic,” he said.

“And as far as I know, most secular institutions don’t have a problem with that,” he added. The directives just help to ensure that “what is happening in a Catholic healthcare institution actually is Catholic, and you’re providing care consistent with the teachings of the Church.”

While discussing the revision of the directives at the general assembly in Fort Lauderdale, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore noted that three of the five Catholic hospitals in Baltimore are already in collaborative arrangements, and that the new revision “doesn’t answer every question, but it does offer helpful guidance.”

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington said the revision “walks a very clear path through many complex issues,” preserving the theological principle of the autonomy of individual dioceses in pastoral ministry. It “makes clear there should be collaboration between dioceses, without taking away the autonomy of the individual bishop.”

The USCCB voted to approve the revised Ethical and Religious Directives June 14, by a vote of 183 to 2, with 2 abstentions.

[…]

null / Mehdi Kasumov/Shutterstock

Washington D.C., Jul 6, 2023 / 10:28 am (CNA).
The victim of Wednesday’s fatal shooting on the school’s Washington, DC campus was 25-year-old Maxwell Emerson of Crestwood, Kentucky, according to an update … […]

Elizabeth Kirk, research associate and lecturer at CUA’s Columbus School of Law. / Catholic University of America

Denver Newsroom, Oct 5, 2021 / 00:01 am (CNA).

This December, the US Supreme Court is set to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that many experts say presents the most momentous test yet of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. At issue is the constitutionality of Mississippi’s 2018 law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

As with any high-profile Supreme Court case, dozens of amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs have been filed both in support of and in opposition to the Mississippi law.

What follows is a Q&A with Elizabeth Kirk, a research associate and lecturer at the Catholic University of America and one of the signers of an amicus brief supporting Mississippi’s abortion law.

The brief lays out an argument that abortion has hurt women’s advancement; that women were making strides toward equality before Roe; and that abortion is not necessary for women’s socioeconomic success.

Kirk is a research associate and lecturer at the Catholic University of America, where she also serves as the Director of the Center for Law and the Human Person. Her scholarly interests are in the area of law and the family, and in particular the intersection between law and the Catholic intellectual tradition.

CNA: The amicus brief you signed lays out an argument that contrary to the Supreme Court’s rulings, abortion has not facilitated women’s advancement, and in reality, has hurt women. Can you walk me through the brief’s argument and evidence?

EK: There are 80 briefs in support of the State of Mississippi in the Dobbs case, each one articulating a different relevant argument. The focus of this particular amicus brief relates to the claim made in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) to justify upholding Roe: “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

The authors rebut this claim, summarizing the empirical evidence relating to women’s historical achievements and their participation in society in the last half-century, and demonstrate convincingly that the Casey premise is false, i.e., that there is no causal link between the availability of abortion and women’s participation in society.

Furthermore, the authors point out that the data actually suggest some correlation between abortion and negative consequences for women, such as the feminization of poverty and declining levels of happiness.

Finally, the authors make the point that the argument that women need abortion to participate necessarily takes the male reproductive experience as the model for economic and social participation, and that this lopsided view has prevented meaningful accommodation of women, including their experience of pregnancy and motherhood, in the workplace and other spheres of society.

How did it come about that you signed the amicus brief in this case? Have you signed amicus briefs in similar cases in the past?

The amicus brief drafted by Teresa Collett, Helen Alvare and Erika Bachiochi was written on behalf of professional women and women scholars who hold doctorate degrees, as well as prolife feminist organizations. Any woman who fit that description and supported the brief’s argument was welcome to join. I know the drafters personally and was honored to sign.

I have testified in state legislatures on matters related to abortion, but this is the first amicus brief I have signed on the topic. I joined previous amicus briefs in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia [a significant case related to religious freedom] and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, a companion case to Bostock [a 2020 decision that a federal ban on sex discrimination also protects sexual orientation and gender identity].

Many are saying the Dobbs case has a chance of overturning Roe v. Wade. Do you agree?

Certainly. This case presents this question to the Court: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Under the governing precedents of Roe and Casey, there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion and states may not place an “undue burden” on it before viability. So, the question presented goes to the heart of the matter.

Of course, there are a number of ways the Court could handle this case short of overturning Roe and Casey. For example, it may affirm the constitutional right itself, but articulate a different test than the current “undue burden” test, or it may reconsider the role of viability in evaluating laws restricting abortion.

Many people are talking about what a “post-Roe” country could look like. What could the legal landscape of the United States look like, in terms of abortion law, if Roe is overturned?

A post-Roe legal landscape will better reflect the different views our pluralistic society holds on abortion. If Roe is overturned, all this means is that abortion regulation will again become the province of the states (as it was before 1973) and different states may be more restrictive or more permissive, as their constituencies demand through the legislative process.

We already know that some states, either legislatively or judicially, allow abortion in almost every instance. For example, New York and Illinois have very permissive abortion laws. The state supreme court of Kansas recently found a natural right to abortion in its state constitution which will likely invalidate many of its state restrictions on abortion. Overruling Roe would have little impact on the law in such states.

Some have speculated that since abortion rates are highest in places that already have such permissive abortion laws, if Roe were overturned, the national abortion rate would not be impacted dramatically. Those seeking to promote a culture of life, and a culture that supports women and embraces pregnancy and motherhood, would still have work to do.

Of course, overturning Roe would give more latitude to those states that wanted to protect human life more vigorously than is possible under the Roe/Casey regime. Pro-life advocates would need to persuade legislators and voters of the wisdom of this and to be creative about laws, policies, and initiatives to help women and families welcome children more readily.

Do you ever feel you are treated differently from others because you are a pro-life woman?

Frequently, I experience the presumption that, because I am a professional woman with an advanced degree, I must be pro-choice.

We hear a lot about the pro-life position being “anti-science” or “anti-intellectual.” Do you face this accusation often? If so, how do you respond?

I do not experience this accusation often. I think many people today, familiar with incredibly detailed ultrasound photos of their siblings or their own children, are reluctant to deny the obvious humanity of the unborn child.

Rather, I experience more frequently the arguments that (1) the pro-life position fails to promote women’s equality (refuted in our brief); (2) women’s healthcare includes abortion access (which depends on the faulty premise that fertility and pregnancy are “diseases”), or (3) the pro-life movement only demonstrates concern for unborn children (which Helen Alvaré has convincingly called the “lazy slander of the pro-life movement”.)

Have you always considered yourself to be pro-life, or was there a moment or event that convinced you of the position?

For me this has always been a very personal matter as I was the child of a “crisis pregnancy” and my husband and I were blessed to adopt our four children, three at birth through private placements by their birth families and the littlest one through foster care.

The reality of the pressures that my mother, and the birthmothers of our children, may have experienced has informed my thinking about how we might best respond generously to women in need to support them and their children.

[…]