US

New York City, N.Y., Sep 9, 2017 / 12:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Peace is something that must begin in childhood, the Holy See’s representative told the United Nations, stressing the need for children to be educated in a “culture of encounter.”  

“The promotion of a culture of peace among children is crucial for a future of peace. Key to installing this value in children is to educate them in a ‘culture of encounter,’” said Archbishop Bernadito Auza, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN.

This “involves an authentic atmosphere of respect, esteem, sincere listening and solidarity, without the need to blur or lessen one’s identity,” he said.

The archbishop spoke at the High-Level Forum on a Culture of Peace in New York City on Sept. 7, noting that the forum’s focus on childhood development coincides with the 100th anniversary of the first apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.

He said Our Lady’s message of peace is especially relevant today “where violent conflicts, acts of terrorism, utter violations of fundamental human rights and extreme poverty suffocate effort for peace.”

Schools should educate children on civil discourse, or what Pope Francis calls a “grammar of dialogue,” said the archbishop, which allows for a harmony of religious and cultural diversity.

He said this formation will enable children to engage in intellectual conversation and enhance the ability to search for the truth together, thus enabling the culture of peace.

“Such a culture would enable children to respond actively and constructively to the many forms of violence, poverty, exploitation, discrimination, marginalization, and other indignities.”

This culture of encounter begins with an understanding of human dignity, he said, noting that any reduction of this vision of the human person leads to injustice and inequality.

Archbishop Auza said the world’s nations should aim to deter practices that are destructive to the person, including violence and the proliferation of weapons, and should instead promote forgiveness and non-violent resistance.

“In this respect, fostering a culture of peace entails persevering efforts toward disarmament and the reduction of reliance on armed force in the conduct of international affairs.”

The opposite, he said, reinforces conflict and diverts resources away from development and towards military ends.  

“Moreover, a culture of peace can only thrive in a culture of forgiveness. Forgiveness is central to reconciliation and peace-building, because it makes healing and the rebuilding of human relations possible.”

The archbishop said this forgiveness is not a lack of justice, but instead identifies evil as what it is, and involves “the courageous choice of not allowing the wounds of the past to bleed into the present and future.”

And as violence breeds more violence, the injustices against the human person must be fought and rooted out by means of nonviolence, he said.

Quoting Pope Francis’s 2017 message for the World Day of Peace, he called peace a gift from God, but said it is also a challenge and commitment because it is a good that needs constant effort “to seek and build.”

In a challenge to the assembly, Archbishop Auza reiterated the call of Saint John Paul II to rise “above the cold status of an administrative institution … to become a moral center” where countries have a home to become a “family of nations.”

[…]

Albany, N.Y., Sep 8, 2017 / 04:43 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- New York’s highest court upheld the state’s ban on assisted suicide Thursday, in what Catholic leaders have called an important pro-life victory for the state.

The New York State Court… […]

Washington D.C., Sep 8, 2017 / 12:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Texas churches damaged by Hurricane Harvey filed a lawsuit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency, claiming they have been denied disaster relief grants due to their religious status.

“After the costliest and most devastating natural disaster in U.S. history, the government should come to the aid of all, not leave important parts of the community underwater,” said Diana Verm, counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm representing the churches.

“Hurricane Harvey didn’t cherry-pick its victims; FEMA shouldn’t cherry-pick who it helps.”

Hurricane Harvey, which ravaged the Texas coast in recent weeks, brought severe flooding to Southeast Texas, resulted in the deaths of over 60 persons, displaced 30,000, and damaged or destroyed homes throughout the region. It has reportedly caused billions of dollars of damage.

Becket filed a lawsuit against FEMA in a Houston federal court. In a complaint filed on Monday, three Texas churches – Harvest Family Church of Cypress, Tex., Hi-Way Tabernacle in Cleveland, Tex., and Rockport First Assembly of God in Rockport, Tex. – said that FEMA unlawfully denied them grants for disaster relief simply because of their religious status.

FEMA’s disaster relief policy states that “[f]acilities established or primarily used for political, athletic, religious, recreational, vocational, or academic training, conferences, or similar activities are not eligible” for grants.

Yet other non-profit community centers are eligible for grants, Becket says. And churches, some of which have helped distribute FEMA aid, need relief grants to make serious repairs.

“We’re just picking up the pieces like everyone else. And we just want to be treated like everyone else,” said Paul Capehart of Harvest Family Church.

“Our faith is what drives us to help others. Faith certainly doesn’t keep us from helping others, and we’re not sure why it keeps FEMA from helping us.”

The churches’ complaint claims that their eligibility for disaster relief is protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, that they cannot be denied relief simply because of their religious status.

And churches have been actively helping distribute disaster relief. One of the churches in the lawsuit, HiWay Tabernacle, “is currently in use as a shelter for dozens of evacuees, a warehouse for disaster relief supplies, a distribution center for thousands of emergency meals, and a base to provide medical services,” the complaint stated. Over 8,000 FEMA emergency meals have been handed out at the church’s facilities.

And other non-profit facilities are eligible for disaster relief, like “community centers,” the complaint said, so religious non-profits shouldn’t be excluded from grants.

The churches are in need of serious repairs, the complaint said. For instance, Rockport First Assembly of God saw its roof and its internal lighting and insulation destroyed. Serious flood damage also occurred at Hi-Way Tabernacle and harvest Family Churches.

FEMA’s policy prohibiting churches from receiving disaster relief is also in opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling months ago in the Trinity Lutheran case, Becket argued.

Then the court had ruled in favor of a Lutheran church, which had applied for a state program that would reimburse it for resurfacing the playground of its school with material made from recycled tires.

Becket said that court’s decision was “protecting the right of religious organizations to participate in generally available programs on equal footing with secular organizations.”

The court’s majority opinion did contain a footnote stating that the decision was about “discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” and did not “address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, pointing out that the footnote in question could be misinterpreted.

“I worry that some might mistakenly read” the footnote to apply only to “’playground resurfacing’ cases, or only those with some association with children’s safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy,” Gorsuch wrote.

He said that “the general principles here do not permit discrimination against religious exercise – whether on the playground or anywhere else.”

[…]

Washington D.C., Sep 7, 2017 / 04:22 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. bishops’ conference on Thursday sharply rejected claims by former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon that the bishops support undocumented immigrants in order to fill churc… […]

Washington D.C., Sep 7, 2017 / 09:25 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A Catholic nominee to a federal circuit court faced hostile questions about her faith from U.S. senators on Wednesday, prompting outrage from Catholic leaders.

“This smacks of the worst sort of anti-Catholic bigotry,” Dr. Chad Pecknold, a theology professor at The Catholic University of America, told CNA of questions asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) of Amy Comey Barrett, a Catholic lawyer nominated to be a federal circuit court judge.

“Senator Feinstein’s shockingly illegitimate line of questioning sends the message that Catholics need not apply as federal judges,” added Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with The Catholic Association.

WATCH: Sen. Feinstein to appeals court nominee Amy Barrett, @NotreDame law prof/#Catholic mother of 7: “The dogma lives loudly within you.” pic.twitter.com/mpDgNZGRsa

— Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) September 6, 2017

Barrett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday at her confirmation hearing to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh U.S. Court of Appeals.

In the past, Barrett had clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and has twice been honored as “Distinguished Professor of the Year” at Notre Dame.

However, as she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, some of the pointed questions directed at her by Democratic senators focused on how her Catholic faith would influence her decisions as a judge on cases of abortion and same-sex marriage.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member of the committee, told Barrett outright that her Catholic beliefs were concerning, as they may influence her decisions as a judge on abortion rights.

“Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different,” Feinstein said.

“And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.”

Feinstein began her round of questions by personally complimenting Barrett that she was “amazing to have seven children and do what you do,” but then called her “controversial” when she began to address Barrett’s record in law, “because you have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail” over the law.

“You’re controversial because many of us that have lived our lives as women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems,” she said. “And Roe entered into that, obviously.”

Barrett repeatedly said that as a judge, she would uphold the law of the land and would not let her religious beliefs inappropriately alter her judicial decisions.

At the beginning of the hearing, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the committee, asked Barrett: “When is it proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law?”

“Never,” Barrett answered. “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Feinstein’s “anti-Catholic bigotry” in her questions to Barrett “is especially chilling because it defames and slanders such an accomplished woman in the legal guild,” Pecknold said.

Feinstein “reveals herself to be the sort of ideologue who never considers the substance of her interlocutor’s actual legal decisions, but rather projects false ideologies onto everyone who disagrees with her party on any point,” Pecknold charged.

In 1998, Barrett co-authored an article in the Marquette Law Review with then-Notre Dame law professor John Garvey, now the president of The Catholic University of America. The article focused on Catholic judges in death penalty cases.

Catholic judges, if their consciences oppose the administering of the death penalty, should, in accordance with federal law, recuse themselves from capital cases where a jury recommends a death sentence, Garvey and Barrett wrote. They should also recuse themselves from cases without a jury where they have the option of granting a death sentence, they wrote.

On Wednesday, Barrett was asked repeatedly about this article, published 19 years ago, and whether she still agreed with it today. Barrett answered that she was still a third-year law student during the article’s publication, and “was very much the junior partner” in writing it with her professor.

“Would I, or could I, say that sitting here today, that article in its every particular, reflects how I think about these questions today with, as you say, the benefit of 20 years of experience and also the ability to speak solely in my own voice? No, it would not,” she answered Senator Grassley’s opening question on the article.

She added that she still upholds “the core proposition of that article which is that if there is ever a conflict between a judge’s personal conviction and that judge’s duty under the rule of law, that it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case rather than what the law requires.”

Senator Grassley asked her later how she would recuse herself as a judge in a case, if necessary.

“Senator, I would fully and faithfully apply the law of recusal, including the federal recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, the canons of judicial conduct,” she replied, but added that “I can’t think of any cases or category of cases in which I would feel obliged to recuse on grounds of conscience.”

Garvey, in a Thursday op-ed in the Washington Examiner, explained the article’s conclusion in cases where judges face a conflict of interest between their own conscience and the law.

“Law professors less scrupulous than Prof. Barrett have suggested that sometimes judges should fudge or bend (just a little bit) laws that every right-thinking person would find immoral. In our article we rejected that course of action,” he said, pointing instead to the federal recusal statute.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) then grilled Barrett over her use of the term “orthodox Catholic” in the article, implying that she did not think persons who dissent from Church teaching on marriage to be real Catholics.

“I’m a product of 19 years of Catholic education. And every once in a while, Holy Mother the Church has not agreed with a vote of mine. And has let me know,” he told Barrett. “You use a term in that article – or you both use a term in that article — I’d never seen before. You refer to ‘orthodox Catholics.’ What’s an orthodox Catholic?”

Barrett pointed to a footnote in the article that admitted it was “an imperfect term,” and that the article was talking about the hypothetical case of “a judge who accepted the Church’s teaching” on the death penalty and had a “conscientious objection” to it.

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Durbin asked Barrett, who replied that “I am a faithful Catholic,” adding that “my personal Church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.”

Durbin then said that “there are many people who might characterize themselves ‘orthodox Catholics,’ who now question whether Pope Francis is an ‘orthodox Catholic.’ I happen to think he’s a pretty good Catholic.”

“I agree with you,” Barrett replied, to which Durbin responded, “Good. Then that’s good common ground for us to start with.”

He also asked Barrett how she would rule on a case involving a “same-sex marriage,” given the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent from the 2013 Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

“From beginning to end, in every case, my obligation as a judge would be to apply the rule of law, and the case that you mentioned would be applying Obergefell, and I would have no problem adhering to it,” she said.

Durbin’s questions of Barrett’s faith were also disturbing, Pecknold said.

“So faithful Catholic is interchangeable with Orthodox Catholic. The fact that one definition is acceptable to Sen Durbin but one is not tells you that he thinks one can dissent from the Church’s teaching and be orthodox and faithful.”

“But why is a politician interested in that question when the only concern should be whether the nominee is a superb interpreter of the law? How has this become a religious inquisition rather than an adjudication of legal competence for the bench?” he asked.

“I submit that the real dogmatists in the room are the ones mounting an inquisition against one of the nation’s great legal scholars.”

Other Catholic leaders decried the questioning of Barrett’s faith.

“Such bigotry has no place in our politics and reeks of an unconstitutional religious test for qualification to participate in the judiciary. What these Senators did today was truly reprehensible,” said Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org.

“Imagine the universal outrage had a nominee of a different faith been asked the same questions; there is clearly a double standard at work,” commented Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor with The Catholic Association.

Garvey, in his op-ed for the Examiner, wrote that “I suspect what really troubled” Durbin and Feinstein “was that, as a Catholic, her [Barrett’s] pro-life views might extend beyond criminal defendants to the unborn.”

“If true, the focus on our law review article is all the more puzzling,” he wrote. “After all, our point was that judges should respect the law, even laws they disagree with. And if they can’t enforce them, they should recuse themselves.”

[…]

Washington D.C., Sep 7, 2017 / 03:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A genetic modification therapy designed for treating pediatric leukemia has drawn both praise and caution from a Catholic bioethicist, after recently being approved by the Food and Drug Administ… […]

Lake Charles, La., Sep 6, 2017 / 03:57 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A non-profit group dedicated to studying and explaining the effects of the sexual revolution claims that its ability to process donations online was cancelled because of its views on sexuality.

“The Ruth Institute’s primary focus is family breakdown and its impact on children: understanding it, healing it, ending it. If this makes us a ‘hate group,’ so be it,” Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, said on Friday.

Morse said that on Aug. 31 she received a letter from Vanco Payments, which processed the Ruth Institute’s donations online, telling her that the service would be discontinued that day.

The reason Vanco gave for cutting their service was that the Ruth Institute “has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse. Merchants that display such attributes are against Vanco and Wells Fargo processing policies.”

“We surmise that Vanco dropped us because we hold views about marriage, family and human sexuality that are considered ‘Anti-LGBT’,” Morse said.

Vanco did not reach out to discuss or inquire about allegations that the institute “promoted hate, violence, harassment, and/or abuse,” prior to sending the Ruth Institute a notice that service was being terminated, she said.

“We’ve never had any incidents or problems” with Vanco, Morse told CNA of their years-long relationship with the payment service. She said that the sudden termination of service without any prior notice was “rude” and “uncivil.”

Asked about the decision to cut ties with the Ruth Institute, a Vanco representative on Sept. 1 told CNA, “Vanco depends on the assessment of its banking partners to guide its decisions on continuing customer relationships that those partners believe violate processing policies. Accordingly, based on that assessment, we terminated our processing relationship with the Ruth Institute on Thursday, August 31.”

On Sept. 5, the representative retracted that statement, and issued a new statement saying, “Vanco terminated its processing relationship with the Ruth Institute on Thursday, August 31. Otherwise, we have no additional comment on the issue.”

Vanco did not specify how it had determined that the Ruth Institute “promoted hate, violence, harassment, and/or abuse,” Morse said. However, groups including the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have criticized the Ruth Institute’s stance against same-sex marriage.

The SPLC was founded in 1971 and originally monitored persons and groups fighting the civil rights movement. It began to track racist and white supremacist groups like neo-Nazis and affiliates of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1980s. It also claims to monitor other “extremist” groups like “anti-immigrant” and “anti-Muslim” groups.

More recently, the SPLC has listed mainstream Christian groups like the Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom as “hate groups” for their “anti-LGBT” stance. The Ruth Institute has also been included in this list by SPLC.

The Ruth Institute has faced consequences for this designation. Morse told the National Catholic Register that the institute was denied its application for the “Amazon Smile” program, which sends portions of purchases to charities in the program, because of the SPLC’s “hate” designation.

SPLC has recently faced questions regarding its financial administration, after reports that the non-profit has transferred millions of dollars to offshore accounts and investment firms.

Morse voiced concern that one group like SPLC holds so much power in the public sphere for its designations.

Still, she said, the Ruth Institute will not be deterred in its mission of speaking out against “the sexual revolution in all its forms” – from divorce to the hookup culture to same-sex marriage – because these things are harmful to the human person.

“What the sexual revolution promotes is irrational,” she said.

[…]

Austin, Texas, Sep 6, 2017 / 12:04 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked part of a Texas law that bans dilation-and-evacuation abortions in the second trimester.

“While some pro-lifers may be tempted to despair at … […]

Providence, R.I., Sep 5, 2017 / 07:38 pm (CNA).- Many Americans are justifiably outraged at the lives that will be shattered by the cancellation of DACA – but that same sentiment should extend to the unborn lives cut short by abortion, said Bisho… […]

Washington D.C., Sep 5, 2017 / 03:23 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Bishops condemned the Trump administration’s decision Tuesday to end a program that benefited hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors.

“The cancellation of the DACA program is reprehensible,” leading U.S. bishops said in a joint statement released Sept. 5.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, as well as vice president Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, migration committee chair Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, and Bishop Joseph Tyson of Yakima, chair of the subcommittee on pastoral care of migrants, refugees, and travelers, all contributed to the statement on the Trump administration’s ending of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Young immigrants eligible for DACA have worked in the U.S., served in the U.S. military, and attended U.S. educational institutions, the bishops said, yet now “after months of anxiety and fear about their futures, these brave young people face deportation.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had announced Tuesday morning that the Trump administration, in an anticipated move, would be ending DACA, which had begun under the Obama administration.

Under the program, eligible immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as minors by their parents could receive a two-year stay on their deportation. In that time period, they could be eligible for work permits and Social Security.

The program was announced in 2012 by President Obama and implemented by the Department of Homeland Security, in the memorandum “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.”

Congress had several times tried and failed to pass the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or a version of it, that would help young immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally before the age of 16 to lawfully remain in the U.S. and even have a path to citizenship.

The most recent version has been introduced this year by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and would grant permanent legal status to more than 1 million eligible persons.

DACA was expanded to include eligible parents who brought their children illegally to the U.S. in a program called “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.” In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld a halt on that program going into effect, and Sessions warned Tuesday that DACA could get struck down in court.

On Tuesday, the administration announced it would end DACA by phasing it out. Sessions said that it was an “unconstitutional” overreach of executive power, especially since Congress refused several times to grant such benefits to undocumented immigrants.

“In other words, the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions,” Sessions stated.

Sessions also blamed the program for contributing to the recent surge in unaccompanied minors coming to the U.S.-Mexico border from Central America, as well as allowing undocumented immigrants to take jobs that could have been open to U.S. citizens.

Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke stated that the courts would have overturned DACA, and so the administration was trying to “wind the program down in an orderly fashion that protects beneficiaries in the near-term while working with Congress to pass legislation.”

The bishops, in their statement, called on Congress to pass a law to protect the immigrants who would have been eligible for DACA, and promised to continue advocating for DACA youth.

“We strongly urge Congress to act and immediately resume work toward a legislative solution,” the bishops stated. “As people of faith, we say to DACA youth – regardless of your immigration status, you are children of God and welcome in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church supports you and will advocate for you.”

Other bishops also issued statements expressing disappointment in the Trump administration’s decision.

Archbishop Gomez, in a separate statement, said “as a pastor” that ending DACA would result in the possible deportation of 800,000 and would be “a national tragedy and a moral challenge to every conscience.”

“It is not right to hold these young people accountable for decisions they did not make and could not make. They came to this country through no fault of their own,” he said. “Most of them are working hard to contribute to the American dream — holding down jobs, putting themselves through college, some are even serving in our nation’s armed forces.”

Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington said that “while the issue of immigration is complicated …  “offering special protection to those who only know the United States as home is a reasonable measure of compassion.”

Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the White House Tuesday morning to protest the administration’s announcement.

Carlos, 31, of northern Virginia, told CNA he currently works two jobs to pay for his college tuition and is nine months from finishing school. Without his degree, he would not be able to pursue a nursing career, he said.

“DACA protects young immigrants like myself to achieve their full potential,” he said. “The young people of this country are the future, we are the future of America. And everyone that has a dream, everyone that has a purpose that wants to help someone is also a dreamer, not just myself.”

“Dreamers” are not asking for handouts, Edvin, another immigrant protesting the end of DACA, told CNA.

“I came to this country with nothing,” Edvin said, “now I’m trying to give something back to this country. I am a business owner, I became a home owner, and I contribute to this country.”

“We are not asking for money. We are not asking for food or anything else,” he said. “We just want a chance to work here legally. Just give us documentation to do it in a safe way, no hide under the shadows. Just let us be us.”

Fr. Kevin Thompson, OFM Cap., parochial vicar at the Shrine of the Sacred Heart in Washington, D.C., said many DACA recipients are parishioners there.

“They’re just doing so well and advancing,” he said, and are “adding to this country.”

It is vital “to keep families together,” he said. He also pointed to the Old Covenant, at which time God told the Israelites  to “treat the foreigner well, as you were once foreigners in Egypt.”

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network called the announcement a “a heartbreaking disappointment.” Jeanne Atkinson, the group’s executive director, said many young people have benefited from DACA, with 60 percent of those approved for the program contributing to their family’s finances, 45 percent in school, and 16 percent having bought a home.

“Ending DACA will break apart families, throw potentially millions into impoverished living conditions and shatter the dreams of a better life for young people who did nothing wrong,” Atkinson said.

John Garvey, president of the Catholic University of America, said ending DACA without Congress providing a sufficient legislative solution would be problematic.

“Our country’s moral quality is measured by the way we treat those who most need our assistance. DACA has given young people a shot at an education and a better life. Elimination without a more comprehensive solution means abandonment,” he said.

[…]