VICTORY
CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES WELCOME PASSAGE OF PEPFAR REAUTHORIZATION
$48 billion, five-year bill will continue to address the scourge of HIV/AIDS Baltimore, MD, July 25, 2008 - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) welcome yesterday’s passage of a new five-year version of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a $48 billion five-year commitment that will help alleviate the suffering of some of the world’s most vulnerable people. The House, which earlier passed its own version of the bill, approved the one that came out of the Senate by an 80-16 vote last week. It will now go to the President’s desk for his signature. “USCCB and CRS welcome the bipartisan consensus reflected in this bill that preserves PEPFAR’s focus on its foundational goals of saving lives, caring for the infected and the affected, and preventing the spread of deadly disease,” said Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on International Justice and Peace. Ken Hackett, president of CRS, praised the bill for strengthening PEPFAR programs to include addressing tuberculosis and malaria. “These two debilitating, often deadly diseases seriously affect poor people in developing countries, especially those with HIV,” Hackett said. “We also appreciate a number of new provisions, including those that improve food and nutrition programs—vital components in treating and caring for HIV/AIDS patients as well as supporting the orphans and vulnerable children left in the wake of this disease.” Hackett also singled out parts of the bill that strengthen the healthcare workforce in the affected countries. “The ever-growing demand for healthcare professionals in HIV and AIDS is exhausting the limited pool of personnel that must also provide all other health care services,” Hackett said. Both the Conference of Bishops and CRS are appreciative of the retention of the “conscience clause,” which will help assure that Catholic and other faith-based organizations are not discriminated against as HIV/AIDS service providers.
“We welcome the retention of abstinence, fidelity and partner reduction, which have proved highly effective in curbing the spread of HIV in many countries, as major components of HIV prevention education,” Bishop Wenski said. As one of the nation’s leading overseas relief organizations, CRS has been at the forefront of the fight against AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the focus of the PEPFAR funding. Since starting its first HIV and AIDS project in 1986, the agency has expanded its work to more than 250 projects in 52 countries, spending almost $120 million on the pandemic this year alone. This year, CRS will directly help more than 3.5 million people affected by the disease. Hackett said the five-year duration of this bill, which continues the initial PEPFAR program without interruption, will help in that fight. “Programming of HIV and AIDS activities in sub-Saharan Africa requires advanced planning,” he said. “Many local institutions have limited independent resources and are reluctant to make programming decisions without assured funding. The risk of a hiatus in funding, however brief, could disrupt treatment regimens, undermine the credibility of healthcare institutions providing HIV services, and endanger lives.” Bill O’Keefe, senior director of CRS’ Advocacy Department, said this PEPFAR bill is a shining example of what can be achieved when the House and Senate put aside partisan differences to focus on tackling a critical problem. “This bill represents years of work by people who often came to the table with differing agendas,” O’Keefe said. “That they were able to reach across those differences and come up with this bill means that millions of lives will be saved and improved over the next five years."
A Statement of the Catholic Bishops of California
in support of Proposition 8:
A Constitutional Amendment to Restore the Definition of Marriage
“Only the rock of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of acting as a foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings.” —Pope Benedict XVI, addressing the John Paul II Institute
for Studies on Marriage and the Family, May 11, 2006
The issue before us with Proposition 8 is “marriage”—an ancient, yet modern, human institution which pre-exists both Church and government. Marriage, history shows us, is intrinsic to stable, flourishing and hospitable societies. Although cultural differences have occurred, what has never changed is that marriage is the ideal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the continuation of the human race.
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the current law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. This radical change in public policy will have many profound effects on our society, because it
- Discounts the biological and organic reality of marriage—and how deeply embedded it is in our culture, our language and our laws and ignores the common understanding of the word marriage; and because it
- Diminishes the word “marriage” to mean only a “partnership”—a purely adult contractual arrangement for individuals over the age of 18. Children—if there are any—are no longer a primary societal rationale for the institution.
As teachers of the faith, we invite our faithful Catholics to carefully form their consciences. We do that by drawing on the revelation of Scripture, the wisdom of Tradition, the experience and insights of holy men and women as well as on what can be known by reason alone.
Crystallizing the teaching on marriage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1603, 1604) proclaims:
God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may
have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.
With all this in mind, we, as bishops, offer counsel to our Catholic people in California in their response to this radical change in California’s public policy regarding marriage.
First, same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions. The marriage of a man and a woman embraces not only their sexual complementarity as designed by nature but includes their ability to procreate. The ideal for the well being of children is to be born into a traditional marriage and to be raised by both a mother and a father. We recognize that there are parents who are single and we laud them for the great sacrifices they make in raising their children.
Second, we need to recall that marriage mirrors God’s relationship with us—and that marriage completes, enriches and perpetuates humanity. When men and women consummate their marriage they offer themselves to God as co-creators of a new human being. Any other pairing—while possibly offering security and companionship to the individuals involved—is not marriage. We must support traditional marriage as the source of our civilization, the foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings, and the reflection of our relationship with God.
Third, we need to remember that we are all children of God possessed of human dignity and that each of us is created in God’s image. Protecting the traditional understanding of marriage should not in any way disparage our brothers and sisters—even if they disagree with us.
Fourth, we must pray and work for a just resolution of this issue which is so important to the well being of the human family.
Fifth, as citizens of California, we need to avail ourselves of the opportunity to overturn this ruling by the California Supreme Court. On the November general election ballot, there will be Proposition 8 which reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That language simply affirms the historic, logical and reasonable definition of marriage—and does not remove any benefits from other contractual arrangements.
And finally, we strongly encourage Catholics to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed for the passage of Proposition 8. And—please exercise your citizenship and vote in November.
Catholic San Francisco
Guest Commentary: American Catholic structural polarization
By George Wesolek
Like the certainty of winter coming after fall, further polarization in the Catholic community will happen during this presidential election season. This polarization, poisonous and infectious to the ecclesial community, makes us increasingly ineffective in living out Catholic social teaching and producing change for social justice.
It didn't have to be this way.
Structural decisions made 34 years ago by American Catholic Church leaders - bishops, clergy, religious and laity - are a primary cause of these circumstances today. The fruit of these decisions continues to be an obstacle to American Catholic unity of thought and purpose and the cause of bitter division and partisan infighting.
When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops set up a separate Pro - life ministry with its own staff and network right across the hall from its office for Social Development and World Peace ( Justice and Peace ) , it set in motion a chain of developments that has compartmentalized Catholic social teaching and helped to create two Catholic constituencies. Instead of establishing one office of Catholic social teaching which would expound one message - clearly and consistently about the human person from the unborn through the life cycle right until death - the decision makers set up parallel structures, each with its own message. These structures resulted in dysfunction and confusion that continues to this day.
Each message has created a constituency around it. These two constituencies often have little in common; have opposite world - views regarding culture and politics and, frankly, dislike each other.
More problematically, by dichotomizing the essence of the message of Catholic social teaching, it has allowed Catholic constituencies to pick and choose their favorite Catholic social teaching concept and discard or trivialize other important elements. In the present political climate, it has allowed "cover" for Catholics, especially Catholic politicians. With faith and values all the rage now in both political parties, it is clear Catholic politicians will continue to claim the mantle of faith by using terminology, sometimes taken directly from the "Compendium on Catholic Social Teaching," to describe their beliefs about the poor, the unborn and the like. Unfortunately, all too often, they will proclaim only part of the teaching, not all of it.
Politically, in the past and surely to be the case this political season, this has led to Catholics hurling anathemas at each other from the right and the left of the political spectrum. The results of all of this will be more polarization, division and confusion, making this upcoming presidential election one of the most fractious and bitter in American Catholic history.
I cannot help but wonder what the present American political theater would look like if the Catholic Church had been teaching a unified, clear and consistent message for more than 30 years. Could it be that legalized abortion would be a thing of the past? Could it be that healthcare and housing would be available to all? If a core group of 65 million Catholics understood the Church's full message and acted on it, would there be the a Democratic Party today which still considers pro - life Democrats as somehow unfaithful? Would Planned Parenthood still have a stranglehold on the party? Would the Republican Party have a different slant on those who live on the margins of society as more than just collateral damage of Adam Smith's "invisible hand"? Could it be that with a unified and consistent message taught more than three decades, there would actually be a true "Catholic vote" in the U.S.?
The structural dysfunction caused by separate structures negates and distorts the fact that Catholic social teaching is seamless. The teaching of the Church does not have different principles for different social issues. There is no set of Catholic teaching that applies only to life issues or only to issues of economic or social justice. Each of the basic principles of Catholic Social Teaching is immediately applicable to all situations that involve the human situation, both personal and social. At the core of the teaching is the anthropological assertion that every human being has a dignity that is sacred - that every person is made in the imago Dei regardless of race or creed, whether rich or poor, smart or not, athletic or disabled. That principle extends from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death and includes everybody in between. It is the basis for our concern and legislative advocacy about the African who lives on less than 65 cents a day, for the millions of children with no medicine who die before the age of five, for those with no food or shelter both abroad and in our own country, for the unborn and the vulnerable elderly.
The precipitating event that instigated this structural course of action was the advent of Roe vs. Wade. What had been presumed as unthinkable became a legal reality - abortion on demand, for any reason to anyone, more available even than some common medical interventions. After some 48 million abortions to this day, the attacks on this fundamental human freedom, the right to life, become more widespread with the possibility of assisted suicide becoming legal in more states than Oregon.
The structural response by the Church after Roe was to institutionalize the educational and advocacy efforts to overturn the decision and to stop the tide of other dehumanizing legislation akin to it. At the time, it perhaps seemed logical to set up a separate office to meet this threat. Many dioceses followed the model.
The two separate constituencies created and galvanized by this structural framework began fighting early and still wage war in a cultural and political context. "Justice and Peace" constituents quickly grabbed onto Cardinal Joseph Bernadin's "consistent ethic of life" metaphor implying if not asserting outright that certain Catholic politicians who were pro - abortion made up for it by being good ( and therefore acceptable under the Catholic mantle ) on a host of other issues on the spectrum: poverty, health care, etc. Many in the pro - life community, on the other hand, developed a tunnel vision approach, which would not even mention any other issue regarding the poor other than abortion. Their passion for this issue drove them completely into the embrace of the Republican Party. This embrace brought with it support for no tax - and - spend policies and a philosophy of government that does not align with classical Catholic social teaching and Vatican encyclicals of the last 100 years. The other side, the classic "economic justice" Catholic ( most of whom are now in their waning years ) will overlook a Catholic politician's perfect 100 percent rating by NARAL ( National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws ) and do anything to elect them with an equal amount of passion. Although it is now difficult ( one hopes ) to maintain Catholic identity and be "pro choice," they survive by winking and nodding at the abortion issue, basically trivializing it.
A unified structural model of social action works. Both the life constituency and the peace and justice constituency get the same message. The action on behalf of justice at the "Walk for Life" and at the Conference on Global Poverty model to them the completeness of the Catholic social teaching message. Pro - life people are becoming aware and supporting action for the poor, supporting the end to the death penalty, while "justice" people are marching at the West Coast Walk For Life.
Over the course of these 30 - plus years, there has been a gradual evolution of the bishops' clarity on Catholic social teaching. The confusion about abortion and euthanasia being "one of many issues on the spectrum of life" has been rejected. The bishops now state: "The direct and intentional destruction of human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed." ( Faithful Citizenship 2007 )
The bishops are also clear that: "Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care." ( Living the Gospel of Life )
So now the catechesis is whole and integral again. The structures and educational strategies to communicate them are not.
The USCCB conference structure is still bifurcated even while there are promising hints that communication between these offices is increasing. Many dioceses around the country still have separate offices for life issues and justice and peace issues but many dioceses are opting to combine Catholic social teaching under one roof. This is a positive and welcome development that unifies the message and makes accountability to the entirety of Catholic social teaching real.
George Wesolek directs the Archdiocese of San Francisco's Office of Public Policy and Social Concerns
Catholic San Francisco
Guest editorial
Civic role - moral imperative
By George Wesolek
Despite widespread cynicism about politicians and all things political, there is freshness in the air and maybe even a hint of optimism. The long and arduous political season that everyone thought would deliver a new reason to hate the political process is instead surprisingly lively and injecting a sense of participation we haven't seen for some time.
Will it increase voter participation? To be more specific, will this atmosphere increase the participation of Catholic voters? We know that, in most elections, a paltry number of people bother to vote. In some elections it is less than one-third of eligible voters. A huge turnout might mean somewhere between 50 and 60 percent. Catholics are no different than the general voting population.
But it should be different. Catholic participation should be high. Why?
Catholics are required to vote. "Required" may seem strong to some. But here's how the U.S. bishops put it in their every four-year statement, "Faithful Citizenship":"In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation."
"Moral obligation" sounds pretty strong to me. Why are the bishops saying this?
Catholic social teaching is based on the premise that human persons are social persons. We are the People of God. We are all the Body of Christ. St. Paul used this metaphor to demonstrate how interrelated we are. If your head hurts, it affects the other parts of your body. Martin Luther King, Jr., said it this way: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Throughout the New Testament our Master and Lord tells us we are one family. He includes all - blind, the disabled, the destitute, the lame, men and women, Jew and Gentile -all children of God our Father. From this great example comes the command: "Love one another."
The bishops are telling us that to fulfill the command to love one another, we must participate in civic and cultural life. This means participating in the political process. Politics, the crafting of laws, is a central way that we interact within our community; that we care for suffering members of our community; that we nurture justice and peace. It is not the only way. Individual action is essential, but without corporate action (often this means government action), grave injustices can oppress a people. Systemic injustice can hamper a people and individual rights. Our faith compels us to love in this way.
Faith has made a great difference in our nation's politics. Faith has been at the center of some of the most important issues facing our country. It was people of faith who supported the Underground Railroad, "illegally" transporting slaves from the South to freedom in the North. People of faith knew it was wrong, unjust and against the law of God to hold another human being as property. People of faith were instrumental in freeing the slaves and changing the law to reflect truth and justice.
It was people of faith who supported and energized the civil rights movement. I have vivid memories of the civil rights march in Selma, Ala. in March of 1965. The first march took place on March 7, now known as "Bloody Sunday." The violence and racial hatred displayed on our TVs was galvanizing. Police with clubs and dogs running down men, women and children proved to be a catalyst bringing the religious community to action. That next day, four priests from the Detroit area where I was a student flew to Alabama to join 400 religious leaders from across the country to march in defiance of the Alabama governor, George Wallace, and local authorities. In Detroit, we joined a march of 10,000 in support of Dr. King. Religious communities around the nation voiced outrage at the racism infecting our country. Five months later, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Acts of 1965.
Rabbi Israel Dresner said before the second, potentially dangerous march, an open act of civil disobedience: "There is a higher law in God's universe and that is God's law. There is a time when man must choose between man's law and God's law."
It was people of faith who began and supported legislation to forgive the foreign debt of the world's poorest countries, countries which could not pay for basic services such as health care and education because of enormous payments. The Jubilee Act of 2000 was passed and gave life, literally, to hundreds of millions.
This faithful citizenship continues. We advocate today as faithful citizens through our Point7Now! Campaign to tell Congress that our America should be doing more to alleviate the extreme poverty of the world's most poor.
And today, it is people of faith who spearhead the most important social issues of our generation: abortion. It is the religious community that holds up the rights of the unborn and says to a cynical and mocking society that life cannot be destroyed at whim. It is the religious community that marches in the streets (even in hostile San Francisco) to witness to this injustice. It is the religious community which floods the halls of legislatures everywhere in this land to support legislation to change this moral wrong.
Participation in civic life is not just important, it is an absolute requirement of our faith. The bishops are correct. It is a moral obligation.
California Bishops call for fair immigration reform
Bay Area faith groups, community organiztions, business and labor leaders held a press conference in Yerba Buena Gardens Wednesday calling for fair immigration reform
for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
By John Han
December 6, 2007
California Catholic Bishops called for continued efforts towards comprehensive and "fair" immigration reform Wednesday to protect the rights of undocumented immigrant workers and their families in the U.S.
Archbishop George Niederauer said at a press conference in San Francisco that the current immigration system is, "outmoded because it does not contain sufficient work visas for temporary migrant workers to enter the country in a safe, legal, and orderly manner."
Joined by Bay Area faith groups, community organizations, business and labor leaders, Niederauer said the work immigrants perform in industries such as agriculture, service, and construction, are important to California and the nation.
"From our experience, the overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants in America are not criminals. They migrate in order to find work to support themselves and their families," said Niederauer. "We urge all Catholics and all Californians to reject attacks on immigrants and to work constructively towards a human resolution of this problem of illegal immigration."
Archbishop George Niederauer
San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commissioner Angus McCarthy said immigrant advocacy groups had to evaluate what failed after the Bush Administration's controversial Immigration Reform bill suffered a landslide defeat in the Senate in June.
The bi-partisan bill, introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), would have provided a pathway toward citizenship to millions of undocumented workers currently living in the U.S. The bill received various criticisms from both Republicans and Democrats with many Republicans turning against Bush, accusing the bill of giving amnesty to illegal aliens.
"This is one of the first moves [since then] by the Catholic charities and the churches to come forward and speak out on the issue," McCarthy said. But he called Bush's version of immigration reform "complex".
The bill would have included $4.4 billion to fund "enhanced" border securities. That would have included building more detention facilities to accommodate 31,500 detainees, increased fencing and border patrols, and the installation of ground-based radar and camera towers along the Southern border.
George Wesolek, Director of Archdiocese of San Francisco, said that though he thought the bill was a compromise, he nevertheless supports it.
"It was moving in the right direction," he said.
"We supported a general idea of having some sort of a path to citizenship which the bill provided," Wesolek added. "It was a little punitive of people coming and then not being able to have their families come and join them for as long as maybe ten or fifteen years."
Globalization and free trade agreements such as NAFTA have also played a key role in the patterns of migration and needed to be recognized Wesolek said.
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval said free trade agreements had serious detrimental effects on rural communities in places such as Mexico, including displacement and migration of workers into bigger cities.
Sandoval said local Mexican farmers could not compete with giant U.S corporations that can grow and sell corn in Mexico at cheaper rates than Mexican farmers. But many other businesses were causing displacement as well.
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval
"When you look at the growth of big chain stores like Wal-Mart and Mexico, you have to understand that Wal-Mart is selling products to customers that previously were buying local products," Sandoval said
"With the loss of jobs, people either have to come work at Wal-Mart or go to the big cities or to the United States. But they no longer can stay in their small towns."
"My grandfather was a furniture maker and he made everything out of wood and straw. I know that the type of product that he made is less and less in demand because people now will buy a plastic chair made in China and sold by Wal-Mart. That's a direct consequence.
fogcityjournal.com
Read Past Articles
|
