|
FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP
The USCCB letter and other documents on Faithful Citizenship
The link http://www.nccbuscc.org/faithfulcitizenship/index.htm will take you to the Faithful Citizenship Home Page. From there you can browse the many resources on FC provided by the Bishops
Christians, Same-Sex Marriage and the Courts
Notre Dame's Richard Garnett on How to Approach Some Thorny Issues
SOUTH BEND, Indiana, MARCH 5, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Richard Garnett, a legal expert in religious liberty, holds that Christian citizens have a right to pursue the common good through politics and policy.
"It is not so much a matter of imposing a sectarian agenda as it is proposing certain claims about human flourishing, civil society and the common good to fellow citizens," he said.
The associate professor of law at Notre Dame and former clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist shared with ZENIT his thoughts on the roles of the courts, Christians and the law in legal battles over same-sex unions, the Pledge of Allegiance, and government funding for theology majors.
Q: What is the future of homosexual marriage in the courts after the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling mandating that the state give marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Will the U.S. Supreme Court rule on this issue?
Garnett: The United States Supreme Court will not likely address anytime soon the question whether the federal Constitution requires governments to authorize or recognize same-sex marriages.
That said, the ruling by the court in Massachusetts will likely influence the rulings of other states' courts, which will certainly be asked in the not-too-distant future to decide whether their states' constitutions should be understood to require recognition of such unions.
And, we can expect litigation -- in both state and federal courts -- about the meaning of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the question whether states that do not permit same-sex marriages must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Unless another court forces the Supreme Court's hand -- by holding, for example, that the United States Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriage -- that court will likely stay out of the fray as long as possible and allow the matter to "percolate" in state and lower courts.
Q: Many Christians and family policy activists favor a federal constitutional amendment limiting marriage to the union of a man and woman. This would effectively federalize what has traditionally been a state function -- granting marriage licenses. Should defenders of traditional marriage be cautious of stepping on federalism or is this issue just too important to leave to judges and the states?
Garnett: "Federalism" is a complicated concept. On the one hand, it is often understood to mean that experimentation and diversity in policy matters are good things, and that certain issues are therefore best left up to the states.
Certainly, there are good reasons for believing that there are such issues and for resisting the "federalization" of every controversial question. To an extent, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity reflects a similar preference for decentralized decision making.
On this understanding of federalism, the question to be answered is whether marriage is the kind of institution that is well served by a diversity of approaches, or whether its health requires a clear, uniform definition. There is nothing hypocritical or inappropriate about believing that, while many questions and issues call for experimentation, others require uniformity.
Federalism also refers to the legal structure created by our Constitution, in which the federal government enjoys only limited, enumerated powers. Those who support the Federal Marriage Amendment recognize that the United States Constitution, at present, leaves the definition of marriage in the states to the states.
Congress, in other words, lacks the power to "nationalize" the definition of marriage by statute. Supporters of the amendment realize that, given this understanding of federalism, a change to the Constitution would be required to guarantee that marriage continues to be defined and understood, in every state, as the union of one man and one woman.
It is worth noting that even those who are willing to accept experimentation and diversity in the definition of marriage might nonetheless, perhaps reluctantly, support a uniform, national definition, imposed by the amendment, because they believe that decisions by the Supreme Court and other courts will eventually result in a redefinition of marriage for the entire country.
Q: Likewise, should Christians seek to push their political agenda in the courts, or would winning further undermine the democratic process and serve as a Pyrrhic victory?
Garnett: In my view, this is a difficult prudential question. Christians, like everyone else, have a right to try to pursue and promote the common good, as they understand it, through politics and policy. It is not so much a matter of imposing a sectarian agenda as it is proposing certain claims about human flourishing, civil society and the common good to fellow citizens.
In the context of litigation and "in the courts," I do not believe that presenting legal arguments in defense of the traditional definition of marriage should be equated with pushing a political or sectarian agenda.
Certainly, there are thoughtful Christians who believe that we are better served by focusing our attention on the current poor health of Christian sacramental marriage, and by withdrawing from the debate about state-law definitions.
Other, no-less-thoughtful Christians, contend that the traditional understanding of marriage matters not just to Christians, but is closely linked to the well-being of society, and therefore that Christians need to remain engaged in the debate.
Q: What role, if any, do Catholic judges play in promoting Christian values? Can the law be a teacher of morals? Does Catholic social teaching say anything in this regard?
Garnett: Catholic judges, like all judges, should interpret and apply the law. Certainly, Catholic judges have an obligation not to do or cooperate with evil, but I do not believe that their job as judges is to "promote Christian values."
Catholic citizens, however, like all citizens, should do their best to convince their legislators and fellow citizens to enact and support just laws that protect human dignity and promote the common good.
On the question of law-as-teacher, I do believe that the law has a pedagogical function: Not only can the law enforce morals, but it can shape them. This function of law is recognized, I think, in the Catholic social teaching tradition. This is not to say, however, that Christians must or should use the law to prohibit all that is immoral or require all that is moral.
Q: The Supreme Court is also ruling on two religious freedom cases, one involving the Pledge of Allegiance, and the other involving the use of public scholarship money to pursue a theology major. What do these cases mean for the role of religion in the public square?
Garnett: Very recently, in Locke v. Davey, the court ruled that Washington [state] was not required by the Constitution to allow a public-scholarship recipient to major in theology. I participated in the drafting of a brief supporting the position of the scholarship recipient.
The ruling was a narrow one and does not necessarily authorize governments to discriminate on the basis of religion when operating scholarship or school-voucher programs. Still, the ruling is regrettable in that the court failed to vindicate the no-discrimination-against-religion rule that it has emphasized in other recent decisions.
In the Pledge case, the court will likely decide -- bowing, in my view, to public opinion -- that the lower court was wrong in deciding that the recitation of the Pledge in schools constitutes an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion.
However, it is likely that -- in light of several questionable, but applicable precedents -- the decision will be thinly reasoned, and will rely on claims that the term "under God" in the Pledge lacks any religious significance or meaning. It is not clear that Christians should welcome such a "victory."
The Preferential Option for the Poor
An introduction by the St. Andrew the Apostle Parish
Social Concerns Committee (2001)
The Roman Catholic principle known as the Preferential Option for the Poor seems to be little known or little understood by many of the members of our faith community. I do not condemn the community for this but instead identify this fact as a short coming of your Social Concerns Committee. The following is an attempt to remedy this shortcoming.
In general the Preferential Option for the Poor is a principle that states that if an action is taken which negatively impacts the poor then that action would not be considered as being Christian. If an action would help the wealthier segment of a society at the detriment of the poor then that action also should not be taken. An example of the Preferential Option for the Poor is presented below.
Assume that the U.S. Commerce Department was asked to report on the appropriateness of our government’s paying sugar subsidies to U.S. farmers in support of their crop. Also assume that sugar producers in the third world were extremely poor. The Preferential Option for the Poor would dictate that since the American farmer was richer than the farmer in the third world and that the subsidies were being put in place to keep the third world product out of the country, the subsidies should not be recommended. This decision would be valid even if the lack of subsidies raised the cost of sugar to the U.S. consumer.
The example provided above is hypothetical and is presented as an exercise by government. It must be understood that each of us as individuals must be continually mindful of the principles of the Preferential Option for the Poor.
Option for the Poor
The moral test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.
Option for the Poor. A preferential love should be shown to poor people, whose needs and rights are given special attention in God's eyes. "Poor" is understood to refer to the economically disadvantaged who, as a consequence of their status, suffer oppression and powerlessness. [Call to Action]
John Paul II, VITA CONSECRATA, 82
"Preference for the poor
and the promotion of justice"
At the beginning of his ministry, in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus announces that the Spirit has consecrated him to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to captives, to give sight back to the blind, to set the oppressed free, to declare a year of favour from the Lord (cf. Luke 4:16-19). Taking up the Lord's mission as her own, the Church proclaims the Gospel to every man and woman, committing herself to their integral salvation. But with special attention, in a true "preferential option," she turns to those who are in situations of greater weakness, and therefore in greater need. "The poor," in varied states of affliction, are the oppressed, those on the margin of society, the elderly, the sick, the young, any and all who are considered and treated as "the least."
The option for the poor is inherent in the very structure of love lived in Christ. All of Christ's disciples are therefore held to this option; but those who wish to follow the Lord more closely, imitating his attitudes, cannot but feel involved in a very special way. The sincerity of their response to Christ's love will lead them to live a life of poverty and to embrace the cause of the poor. For each Institute, according to its charism, this involves adopting a simple and austere way of life, both as individuals and as a community. Strengthened by this living witness and in ways consistent with their choice of life, and maintaining their independence vis-vis political ideologies, consecrated persons will be able to denounce the injustices committed against so many sons and daughters of God, and commit themselves to the promotion of justice in the society where they work.[1] In this way, even in present circumstances, through the witness of countless consecrated persons, there will be a renewal of that dedication which was characteristic of the founders and foundresses who spent their lives serving the Lord in the poor.
Christ is poor on earth in the person of his poor.... As God he is rich, as man he is poor. With his humanity he has gone up to heaven and, prosperous, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and yet, here on earth, still poor, he suffers hunger, thirst and nakedness.[2]
The Gospel is made effective through charity, which is the Church's glory and the sign of her faithfulness to the Lord. This is demonstrated by the whole history of the consecrated life, which can be considered a living exegesis of Jesus' words: "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40). Many Institutes, especially in modern times, were established precisely to address one or other of the needs of the poor. But even when such a purpose was not the determining factor, concern and care for the needy--expressed in prayer, assistance and hospitality--was always a normal part of every form of the consecrated life, even of the contemplative life. And how could it be otherwise, since the Christ encountered in contemplation is the same who lives and suffers in the poor? In this sense, the history of the consecrated life is rich with marvellous and sometimes ingenious examples. Saint Paulinus of Nola, after distributing his belongings to the poor in order to consecrate himself fully to God, built the cells of his monastery above a hospice for the poor. He rejoiced at the thought of this singular "exchange of gifts": the poor, whom he helped, strengthened with their prayers the very "foundations" of his house, wholly dedicated to the praise of God.[3] Saint Vincent de Paul, for his part, loved to say that, when one is obliged to leave prayer to attend to a poor person in need, that prayer is not really interrupted, because "one leaves God to serve God."[4]
Serving the poor is an act of evangelization and, at the same time, a seal of Gospel authenticity and a catalyst for permanent conversion in the consecrated life, since, as Saint Gregory the Great says,
when charity lovingly stoops to provide even for the smallest needs of our neighbor, then does it suddenly surge upwards to the highest peaks. And when in great kindness it bends to the most extreme needs, then with much vigor does it resume its soaring to the heights.[5]
NOTES:
[1] Cf. Propositio 18.
[2] Saint Augustine, Sermon 123, 3-4; PL 38, 685-686.
[3] Cf. Poem XXI, 386-394; PL 61, 587.
[4] Conference "On the Rules" (30 May 1647) in Coste, ed., Correspondance, Entretiens, Documents, Volume IX (Paris, 1923), 319.
[5] Saint Gregory the Great, The Pastoral Rule 2, 5; PL 77, 33.
U.S. House Approves Unborn-Victims Bill
But Its Chances in the Senate Are Unclear
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The U.S. House of Representatives voted to treat attacks on a pregnant woman as separate crimes against both her and her unborn child.
The House voted 254-163 for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill actively backed by the White House.
Backers highlighted the bill by naming it in honor of Laci and Conner Peterson, a pregnant woman in California who was murdered in December 2002, and her unborn child.
Laci's husband Scott Peterson faces double murder charges under California's state unborn victims law. California is one of 29 states that have enacted such laws, and supporters said Congress needs to bring the federal government in line with state laws, the Associated Press said.
The bill's prospects in the Senate are unclear.
Last week, Cardinal William Keeler has urged congressional approval of the bill and rejection of any substitute that would nullify its intent. He chairs the U.S. bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities.
The legislation would protect unborn children whose mothers are physically assaulted, beaten, maimed, or murdered in violation of specified provisions of the federal criminal code.
Cardinal Keeler noted that the legislation explicitly excludes abortion. "Therefore it is all the more disappointing that some insist the bill should nonetheless be defeated to somehow preserve a 'right' to abortion," he had said. "This bill simply ensures that both mother and child are protected from violent assault and murder."
ZE04022625
Marriage of Man and Woman Is Part of Divine Plan, Says Pope
Traits of Conjugal Union Needed for "Pact of Love to Be Authentic"
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- At a time when new "family" models are being proposed, John Paul II says that the marital union between a man and a woman is part of God's plan itself.
"Marriage and the family cannot be considered as a simple product of historical circumstances, or a superstructure imposed from outside on human love," the Pope said today when meeting with the parish priests of his diocese, Rome.
"On the contrary, they [the family and marriage] are an interior need of this love, so that it can be realized in its truth and in its fullness of mutual self-giving," the Holy Father said in the address he prepared for the meeting, although eventually he preferred to speak spontaneously.
"Even the characteristics of conjugal union, which today are often unknown or rejected, such as its unity, its indissolubility, and its openness to life, are, on the contrary, necessary for the pact of love to be authentic," John Paul II explained.
"Precisely in this way the bond that unites man and woman becomes the image and symbol of the covenant between God and his People, which finds in Jesus Christ its definitive fulfillment," he added. "Because of this, among the baptized, marriage is a sacrament, an efficacious sign of grace and salvation."
To understand the family and to help it, it is necessary to go back to its "source," namely, "to God, who is Love and who lives within himself a mystery of a personal communion of love," John Paul II explained.
"In creating humanity out of love in his image, God inscribed in man and woman the vocation and, consequently, the capacity and responsibility of love and communion," he said.
"This vocation can be realized in two specific ways: marriage and virginity," the Holy Father said. "Both are, therefore, each one in its proper form, a concretization of the most profound truth of man, of his being image of God."
"God's plan has not changed, who has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to love and to the family. Today the action of the Holy Spirit is no less intense, gift of Christ, dead and risen," he continued.
"And no error, no sin, no ideology, no human deceit can do away with the profound structure of our being, which needs to be loved and in turn is capable of truly loving," the Pope added.
Although the Pope did not read these words, he asked the priests to read them later in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's semiofficial newspaper.
ZE04022602
Medical Federation's Statement on Human Cloning by Korean Scientists
"Not Acceptable to Deliberately Sacrifice the Life of Any Human Being"
ROME, FEB. 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC) issued this statement following the recent news of the cloning of a human embryo by Korean scientists. The text was adapted slightly here.
* * *
The recent announcement of the publication in "Science" of the successful development, by a Korean group of scientists, of 30 human embryos up to the stage of blastocysts, raises important questions for the entire scientific and medical community.
According to newspapers, the Korean team collected 242 eggs, from which they succeeded in cloning 30 blastocysts, early stage embryos containing a mere 100 cells. From those, they harvested just one colony of viable stem cells.
This is the first important achievement in cloning human embryos in the stem-cell quest that up till now many scientists have attempted without significant results.
As opposed to the unfounded mythology of Raelians and press announcements made by doctors in search of easy fame but without solid scientific grounds, such as, for example, Italian Dr. Antinori, the Korean announcement came from a sound and respected scientific group. Their work, funded by governmental agencies, will be published in a scientific journal that carefully evaluates the quality of results presented.
But this is not all. Korean scientists said their achievement is a contribution to the cure of important diseases, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes. Moreover, they ascribed an intrinsic moral value to their initiative.
In our view, this is precisely why their results are more dramatically serious and need special attention. They call for the immediate organization of a strong cultural resistance on the part of bio-scientists and medical doctors.
In fact, it is immoral to invest enormous amounts of money (including public funds), diverting them from their use to solve modern worldwide tragedies, such as AIDS, malaria or malnutrition.
It is immoral to continue to seek the support of public opinion for these projects, with the promise of imminent treatment for many chronic diseases, although there is no certainty of its feasibility for many years to come, and any preparatory investigation on animals has been deliberately overlooked.
It is immoral to present future results as a gift for mankind, though it is clear that treatment will be very expensive, and that it will be set up by organizations asking for enormous financial rewards.
More importantly, these projects are immoral because researchers must kill the cloned human embryos to extract stem cells.
It is not acceptable to deliberately sacrifice the life of any human being, even if this is done in order to relieve the health problems of other human beings.
A philanthropy that does not recognize the intrinsic value of human beings, despite the fact they are small and powerless embryos, is not humane.
We are convinced that, rather than being humanitarian, this attitude reflects utilitarian views, permitting the manipulation of public opinion, and providing support to areas of economic interest, such as research on embryonic stem cells. At the same time, it surrounds studies, such as those carried out on adult stem cells, with silence, although these studies have already produced important scientific and even clinical results.
But, again, this is not all. It is dangerous to promote the use of embryonic stem cells without considering their high potential for uncontrolled growth, which will translate to a high risk of malignancy, whenever it is used for tissue or organ repair or replacement.
Contrary to the case in other countries, such as, for example, the United States, Korea passed a bill on bioethics last December which permits human cloning for medical uses, and funded this controversial study on the basis of that bill.
We ask that public authorities, universities and the media provide realistic information on the true situation with reference to the therapeutic possibilities made available by embryonic and adult stem cells.
We call for a total ban on the cloning of human embryos. Instead, adult stem cell research should be encouraged.
If this does not happen, it is possible that the same lack of respect for the frailest of human beings which today produces blastocysts for research, tomorrow will not hesitate to clone human embryos in order to produce serial children.
Now is the time to stop: It is difficult to control the use of human embryos, once their production has been permitted!
Professor Gian Luigi Gigli, M.D., president
ZE0402262
|
