Resources

The NCBC guarantees that a credentialed ethicist will be available 24/7 to assist you, or any person, with those most difficult moral health care decisions one must make from the beginning to the end of life.

Dr. John Haas knows from his position as the president of The National Catholic Bioethics Center just how appreciated this service is:

“People have come up to me after mass and have emailed, written me, or even telephoned me just to tell me how grateful they were for the guidance provided by one of our ethicists on consult duty. We must continue this valuable service to those in need.”

We want to be able to continue providing consultation services to our brothers and sisters in Christ and, indeed, to anyone who would turn to the moral wisdom of the Church.

In 2012 alone, the ethicists of the Center helped over 1500 individuals in their time of need; free of charge.

And That Number is Growing.

We are glad to see it grow! The NCBC ethics consultation is so valuable to the public and so vital to our mission that we have worked tirelessly to continue it throughout the tumultuous financial trials of the last few years.

BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP!

This NCBC service is costly in its own way, both monetarily and hourly. As we approach the end of our fiscal year, the NCBC needs help to ensure that the cost does not exceed our ability to cover our services. Your generosity will help to ensure its future. Thank you for taking some time to read our appeal. We hope that you will donate to support this critically important service.

Please, Click Here to Donate.

Please continue to pray for The National Catholic Bioethics Center and support its mission to uphold human dignity every day in medicine and the life sciences.

Sister Maurita Sengelaub, a member of the Sisters of Mercy, was a co-founder of the Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research and Education Center in St. Louis, which is know known as The National Catholic Bioethics Center today.

Sister Maurita was inducted into the Modern Healthcare Hall of Fame at a ceremony held at the Hilton Hotel in Chicago on March 10, 2013.  The first woman head of the Catholic Hospital Association, now Catholic Health Association (CHA), Sister Maurita was recognized for her 60 years of leadership in health care.

The NCBC takes great pride in knowing one of their renowned founders has been extended such an honor.

You can read the entire press release on the Hall of Fame induction HERE

You can learn more about the early history of the NCBC, HERE

In recognition of its founder, the NCBC will be posting a copy of one of our earliest recorded publications: A copy of our monthly Ethics and Medics with a front page letter written by Sister Maurita herself in 1976. This early publication is available to all and can be viewed HERE

Congratulations Sister Maurita!

Pope Francis has set the tone for his papacy and for the whole Church in the years ahead with three concise points in his homily on March 14, 2013: “Journeying, building, professing.”[1] I would suggest there is a clear takeaway for institutions whose mission and identity are bound up with Catholic Christian charity: Do not let worldly concerns transform you into mere social assistance programs or utility-driven “service providers.” It is an echo of Benedict XVI’s affirmation in Deus Caritas Est, no. 31, which he repeated and emphasized in the introduction to his motu proprio On the Service of Charity: “The Church’s charitable activity at all levels must avoid the risk of becoming just another form of organized social assistance.” As one of the most predominant forms of the Church’s charitable works in the United States, Catholic health care surely has ears to hear this message.

Journeying

 Catholic health care has journeyed greatly, both geographically and administratively, through and since its missionary origins in the early days of our country’s history. Much has changed in the way health care is delivered and in the way hospitals and caregivers are organized: medical professional associations, technological and scientific knowledge advancement, costs and payment, and governmental involvement have moved health care in novel directions with respect to that original response to the Catholic Christian calling to care for the sick and the poor. The circumstances and means have changed, but the core vocation of bringing both physical and spiritual healing and comfort must not be lost. Catholic health care should not stop moving, as times continue to change, yet it should be “always journeying, in the presence of the Lord, in the light of the Lord, seeking to live with the blamelessness that God asked of Abraham in his promise.”[2]

Building

Catholic health care has built extensively. According to the Catholic Health Association, “Catholic health care systems and facilities are present in all 50 states providing acute care, skilled nursing, and other services including hospice, home health, assisted living and senior housing.”[3] There are 630 Catholic hospitals in the United States with 641,000 full-time employees, which handle over 5,450,000 patient admissions and 100,000,000 outpatient visits per year.[4] Most significantly, Catholic health care has built in the Church’s spirit of charity: “Catholic hospitals often provide a higher percentage of public health and specialty services than other health care providers. These organizations’ dedication to the common good often leads them to offer these traditionally ‘unprofitable’ services.”[5]

The foundations are solid, and the building continues. How it continues to be built is a serious challenge in light of the recent and upcoming changes in health care in the United States, especially the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) with its preventive services mandate requiring the provision of contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and surgical sterilizations as part of virtually every medical insurance plan, with no exemption to date for Catholic hospitals. The Church condemns these attacks on marriage, family, and life as intrinsic evils. Building Catholic health care is part of building the Church: “We speak of . . . building the Church, the Bride of Christ, on the cornerstone that is the Lord himself.”[6] We should not stop building Catholic health care as times and circumstances change, but we cannot build it properly without “living stones, anointed by the Holy Spirit,”[7] willing to ensure that its foundation is Christ.

Professing

Jesus Christ is crucified and we cannot profess him without the Cross. “When we journey without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, when we profess without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly.”[8] Catholic health care may journey far and build extensively, “but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong.”[9] It is not hard to shift the focus from the fullness of the Christian message to those aspects which will fit with the demands of the world here and now. An organization need not be Catholic to be classified as a non-profit charitable organization. But the government’s definition of charity is not Christ crucified: “We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord.”[10] As his Bride, will we accept him fully or only those features of his which fit our interests? Will we proclaim him faithfully or present him in a false light to avoid persecution, to avoid the Cross? We must carefully weigh the words of Pope Francis: “When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil.”[11]

Pray for Us

Pope Francis is hardly naïve or unaware of the challenges faced by the Church and her charitable activities. “Things are not always straightforward, because in journeying, building, professing, there can sometimes be jolts, movements that are not properly part of the journey: movements that pull us back.”[12] The way of the Lord may be difficult to discern in Catholic health care today, but the obligation—the need—to find him and to build for, with, and through him, remains stronger than ever. Pope Francis concluded his first homily as the Bishop of Rome by invoking the Holy Spirit to grant the entire Church a fundamental grace, which is essential to the mission and identity of Catholic health care in particular: “to walk, to build, to profess Jesus Christ crucified.”

John A. Di Camillo, Be.L.

January 22, 2013, marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court Decision that declared unconstitutional state laws banning abortion prior to viability. Its companion case on the same date, Doe v. Bolton, allowed abortion after viability as well for “health” reasons, which it defined as “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”A brief, authorless article on the website of The Economist commemorated the date. In nine generally uninformative and vague sentences, the article tells the reader that the pro-life cause “duly lost” in Roe v. Wade, and attempts to imply that legal abortion is responsible for significantly safer abortions despite a drop in abortion-related maternal deaths prior to its liberalization.  It then takes a stab at state politicians who have not actively advocated for the removal of presently inactive abortion ban laws that are still on the books. It concludes by suggesting that the record number of abortion restrictions approved in state legislatures across the union in recent years is unwarranted and ineffective: “states have been piling extra regulations on abortion clinics in the past two years, with the aim of reducing an abortion rate that was falling already” (emphasis added). To solidify its succinct and somewhat veiled message, the article includes a graph summarizing the past 40 years of abortion numbers. The article made few references to specific data, so presumably it speaks for itself. What story does the graph tell? Let’s take a look:

The dull brown curve indicates a sudden rise around the time of abortion liberalization followed by an almost linear decline through the present day. The numbers appearing on the right, in brown, are in small denominations spanning from zero to thirty. The bright blue curve represents a visually striking decline. The numbers appearing on the left, in blue, are in larger denominations spanning from zero to two hundred. At first impression, it appears that a minor but temporary spike in abortions (brown curve) has been accompanied by a drastic and long-term reduction in abortion-related deaths (blue curve). In other words, a cursory interpretation would suggest that a foreseeable uptick in abortion numbers (from near zero to thirty and down to twenty) is correlated with an impressive improvement in abortion safety (from one hundred forty down to near zero).

This is misleading.

The graph compares apples to oranges: the numbers are presented on vastly different scales, distorting the shapes of the curves. While abortion-related deaths[1] are presented as an absolute number, the number of aborted children is presented as abortions per one thousand women between the ages of 15 and 44. There are hundreds of millions of women in this category, so the absolute number is vastly greater. A casual reader will not know this number, much less visualize it. To be fair, this way of presenting the data is found at the source from the Guttmacher Institute, which also neglects to show a graph with absolute numbers of abortions.

If we were to compare apples to apples, using the absolute number of abortions per year, the graph presented by The Economist would leave a much different impression on the average observer:

 

There seems to be only one data curve (in red), not two. The blue curve that appeared in the first chart as an obvious logarithmic decline is an imperceptible, constant, flat line hugging the bottom axis of this graph. In other words, it is too small to reflect any relevant change on the smallest possible major axis scale that the graphing software would permit in light of the enormous range of the abortion curve. The maximum value on the major axis (number of deaths) is 1.62 million or 1,620,000. The highest actual value of abortion-related maternal deaths, reported in 1965, is a mere 200. This does not minimize the great value and worth of each of those lives, but it puts things in proper perspective to note that a reduction by about 140 abortion-related maternal deaths per year since the liberalization of abortion laws (1970 and 1973) has been accompanied by an increase in the number of aborted children on the order of millions.

If a graph must speak for itself, it should do so accurately, keeping in mind the audience. In light of the new graph, there is hardly a need to debate the deceptive contention that legalizing abortion would make it not only safe but also “rare.” The true numbers conflate visual representations that seem contrived for emotional impact on casual readers.

Of course, lest any reader be led to believe this issue is just about numbers, perceptions, and emotions, we should recall that there is no number of lives saved or lost that is large or small enough to justify the taking of an innocent human life, which is exactly what abortion is. Suffice it to cite John Paul II’s encyclical letter Evangelium vitae, no. 72:

Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law . . . Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

The 40th annual March for Life to protest the violent injustice of legalized abortion-on-demand was attended by record crowd of people of all ages, especially teens and young adults. The NCBC’s own Dr. Marie T. Hilliard was in attendance, and has shared her story as a Catholic registered nurse when she learned the news of the Supreme Court decision in 1973. We are all called to witness to the dignity of human life, to God’s love for all His children, especially the most vulnerable and voiceless, and to that most beautiful and unbreakable bond between mother and child.

The words of Mother Teresa in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize on December 11, 1979, aptly describe abortion as an unfathomable form of destructive warfare:

We are talking of peace. These are things that break peace, but I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing—direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in the Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child—I will not forget you—I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible—but even if she could forget—I will not forget you. And today the greatest means—the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion. And we who are standing here—our parents wanted us. We would not be here if our parents would do that to us. Our children, we want them, we love them, but what of the millions.

We who are standing here must continue to work for the protection of the millions. God bless the efforts of all those working to defend human dignity—and the lives of so many innocents.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center is proud to announce the release of its newest publication: Elio Cardinal Sgreccia's monumental work, the Manuale di bioetica, under the English title, Personalist Bioethics: Foundations and Applications. Three years of labor have reached fruition in this first English-language translation of Cardinal Sgreccia's landmark bioethical treatise.

Personalist Bioethics advances "ontologically grounded personalim" in bioethics, that is, ethics built through reason upon the objective value and dignity of every human person. This is an approach that goes beyond any specific religious perspective and invokes human reason, calling us to reflect on the intimate meaning of human existence and the environment in which we live. It presupposes a metaphysics that is rationally grounded in philosophy and anthropology and has a broad range of ethical applications. Sgreccia developed this philosophical approach in response to the cultural context in which bioethics arose in the United States.  This internationally renowned book will be of value to professors of bioethics and their students, members of ethics committees, connoisseurs of bioethics, and experts in any related area, be it law, philosophy, or health care. The National Catholic Bioethics Center invites everyone to explore this seminal work. These pages will provide readers with a discussion of the basic contours of personalist bioethics, comparisons of personalism to other philosophical positions, and investigations of particular ethical topics ranging from genetic engineering to euthanasia.

The work was translated from the Italian by John A. Di Camillo and Michael Miller.

A few weeks ago, Washington Post journalist Peter Whoriskey reported on a growing problem in medical research: money! Beginning with a case study on the development, marketing and eventual disappearance from the market of Avandia (a drug for diabetes), Whoriskey paints a picture of contemporary research on human subjects that is not flattering. One of his many important observations is the following,

Over a year-long period ending in August, NEJM [New England Journal of Medicine] published 73 articles on original studies of new drugs, encompassing drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 and experimental drugs, according to a review by The Washington Post. Of those articles, 60 were funded by a pharmaceutical company, 50 were co-written by drug company employees and 37 had a lead author, typically an academic, who had previously accepted outside compensation from the sponsoring drug company in the form of consultant pay, grants or speaker fees. (Peter Whoriskey, “As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias,” Washington Post, November 24, 2012 (accessed, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-24/business/35511825_1_drug-companies-avandia-steven-e-nissen.)

Carl Elliot’s excellent and balanced treatment of human-subjects research comes to a similar conclusion, though his treatment is, of course, more comprehensive and more compelling than what a newspaper report can accomplish. See Elliot’s book White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine. James Marcum has recently published a book entitled The Virtuous Physician (Springer, 2012): A timely book indeed.

Stephen Napier Ph.D. CIP. (Certified IRB Professional)
Consultant, National Catholic Bioethics Center

In response to a law suit filed by the Archdiocese of New York to seek relief from the onerous Health and Human Services Mandate that all employers provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs and devices, a U.S. federal judge has ruled against the federal government’s attempt to dismiss the challenge, which invokes the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Department of Health and Human Services had said that the Archdiocese could not seek relief because the Mandate, which has already been entered into the Federal Register and is therefore active law, will be modified by unknown future changes. It is fitting to recall that our country’s motto is pointedly not “In government we trust.” Indeed, as Judge Brian Cogan states in Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius, “The Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction.” More concretely, Judge Cogan continues, “There is no ‘trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.” Our country cannot stake the inestimable value of religious freedom, with its connection to the God in whom we trust, on political hearsay.

Yet the present administration has openly argued that plaintiffs claiming violations of their religious liberty have no case because the government has “promised” that the existing law will not be applied to the plaintiffs and will be modified in the future with a so-called accommodation. In other words, the Health Human Services mandate for employers and insurers to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs and devices is and would remain active, unjust, coercive, and oppressive, violating the religious liberty and conscience rights of a large segment of the nation’s people, attacking the very core of our society by impugning the First Amendment to our nation’s Constitution. Meanwhile, citizens would have no right to challenge the mandate because the government made a promise to change it. Thankfully, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recognized this absurdity in Wheaton College v. Sebelius, issuing an order that requires the government to fulfill its “binding representations” and to file status reports with the court every 60 days to demonstrate its progress. The NCBC had signed on to an amicus brief for this case.

In addition to the natural and constitutional injustice of this administration’s ill-advised attempt to curtail the conscience protections and religious freedom of the American people, the practical ramifications of the HHS mandate on faith-based ministries and social services are harmful and regrettably familiar to religious congregations with international ministries. For example, the Little Sisters of the Poor, who provide daily care for the elderly poor in many U.S. cities, would certainly not be able to withstand the $100 per day per employee fines they would face to safeguard their religious beliefs and are contemplating abandoning their ministry in the U.S. It is a choice they have already been forced to make in the past, abandoning their apostolic works under oppressive governments in China, Myanmar, and Hungary. It is disturbing that the United States of America is on a path that would add it to that same list, yet many other religious ministries also face a similar choice here in “the land of the free.”

How is it that the government does not seem to fully grasp—or perhaps to fully care about—the grievous implications that would flow from such a violation of constitutionally protected rights? One can only speculate. Yet the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Viganò, warns that “great danger to the future of religious freedom lies with religious persecution that appears inconsequential or seems benign but in fact is not. . . . The issues and reservations . . . about the health care mandate dealing with artificial contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization are very real, and they pose grave threats to the vitality of Catholicism in the United States.”

In this Year of Faith proclaimed by our Holy Father, we are reminded that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:16), which is a way of affirming that our practices, our living, and our works must manifest what we believe. As Benedict XVI forthrightly states in his Motu proprio “On the Service of Charity,” the Church’s charitable activities have a unique character that flows from our Faith and “must avoid the risk of becoming just another form of organized social assistance.” Faith is not worship alone, and the actions of faith ministries cannot be properly understood outside of it. Thus, as George Weigel has written in an article on the HHS Mandate, “In claiming and defending religious freedom in full, the Church is defending the American understanding, with which Catholic teaching is in full accord, that ‘religious freedom’ cannot be reduced . . . to a privacy right to certain lifestyle choices—in this case, the choice to worship. Religious freedom in full is far more than freedom to worship without civil liability, although it surely includes that.”

Encouraged by these recent successes in the courts, there is renewed hope that the government of our great nation will recognize its rightful role as the defender of our natural right to religious freedom, not its usurper. There are now more than 110 plaintiffs in 42 lawsuits (the NCBC has signed on to amicus briefs in four of them) brought by schools, colleges, universities, charities, hospitals, volunteer associations, business, and dioceses, with more on the way, claiming their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. The Apostolic Nuncio has summarized it best in the conclusion of his November speech: “What God has given, the servant state does not have the competence to remove. And God has given us the truth of His Son, the truth who gives us the most precious freedom of all, which is the desire to be with God forever! This is our destiny, and this is why religious freedom . . . is of paramount importance. It is essential to the exercise of our other rights and responsibilities as citizens of the Two Cities.”

In God we trust, not the federal government.

John A. Di Camillo, Be.L.

NCBC Staff Ethicist

Dr. Marie T. Hilliard, NCBC Director of Bioethics and Public Policy, has been appointed Chair of the Canon Law Society of America’s (CLSA) Committee on Laity.  Dr. Hilliard, a canon lawyer, ethicists, and registered nurse, has been involved in the application of canon law to the delivery of health care for over 14 years.  The CLSA was established in 1939 as a professional association dedicated to the study and application of canon law in the Catholic Church. Today the Society’s membership includes over thirteen hundred men and women from thirty-five countries. In serving the leadership of the Church and the People of God, the Society and its members fulfill that responsibility by continuous research and study toward a constant renewal of canon law and by offering practical assistance to members of the Church.

http://www.clsa.org/

The people of the United States have elected President Barack Obama to a second term in the highest office of this country, virtually guaranteeing that the full effects of his health care law will come to fruition. The hope for a rapid change against the government infringement on religious freedom presented by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), with its Health and Human Services mandate for nearly all insurance plans to cover surgical sterilizations as well as contraceptive and abortifacient drugs and devices, has dissolved. We will experience the full extent of what is actually in the PPACA, not only since it has become law, as Nancy Pelosi indicated, but especially now that the threat of repeal is gone and the time frame for its yet-untested provisions—safely stored away until after election day—will soon be upon us. Catholic hospitals, universities, schools, businesses, and other private institutions must face, now more than ever, the hard reality of conscience and religious freedom violations in the health care law, which contains various harmful provisions that will take effect in January 2014 as well as the notorious HHS Mandate, which is already in effect.

Brave legal challenges against the HHS Mandate are already underway across the country. Cases have been brought by numerous Christian businesses and universities, and even by several Catholic dioceses. The National Catholic Bioethics Center has signed on to an amicus brief in the appeal of Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College. Some challengers, such Weingartz Supply Company in Michigan and Hercules Industries HVAC in Colorado, have already successfully secured injunctions against the enforcement of the mandate’s penalties until their cases can be heard in court. The certainty of continued support for the HHS Mandate from the executive branch of the federal government intensifies the moral obligation to continue fighting the unjust elements of the law through the ardent pursuit of other legal remedies on the federal and state levels, especially through the courts and lawmakers.

Authentic health care, brought to fulfillment through proper alignment with the natural moral law and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, cannot be achieved through government-required financial support for intrinsic moral evils that contradict the true good of human persons, such as direct surgical sterilization, contraceptive drugs and devices, and abortifacients. Justice, equality, and fairness cannot be achieved through unjust laws. In the reverberating words of Pope John XXIII from his encyclical letter Pacem in terris, “laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience . . . Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse.”

Sacrificing religion and conscience rights on the altar of government largess cannot secure genuine respect for the people of the United States of America, a nation founded on the ideal of religious liberty and the importance of moral integrity for proper government. If we do not actively protect the right of free exercise of religion and the true good of all people, as understood in the natural moral law and in the Christian vision of human dignity that undergirds authentic health care, then we may soon find that they have been lost.

John A. Di Camillo, Be.L.
NCBC Staff Ethicist

Dr. Marie T. Hilliard, Director of Bioethics and Public Policy, participated in the October 2012 bi-annual meeting of the Aquinas College (Nashville, TN) President’s Advisory Council, of which she is a member.  She also is a member of the Advisory Council for Aquinas College Center for the Study of Human Dignity and Ethics in Health Care.

Click here to read the story regarding the President's Advisory Council meeting of January 2012. The article is on pages 10-11 of the Fall 2012 Magazine.

Published in its Italian original by Vita e Pensiero in several editions and reprints, Cardinal Sgreccia’s masterwork has also been translated into Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Russian. The National Catholic Bioethics Center is pleased to present this important work in its definitive English translation.

AVAILABLE JANUARY 1, 2013

Read more...

Ezekiel Emanuel, a prominent bioethicist of the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine and the Wharton School, as well as a Fellow of The Hastings Center, has exposed some of the myths concerning the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.  Dr. Emanuel has identified as fallacies four arguments that are used to justify the violation of the sacred trust of physicians to do no harm.

In an opinion piece in the New York Times (“Four Myths About Doctor-Assisted Suicide,” October 27, 2012), Dr. Emanuel addresses the impending Massachusetts ballot initiative of next Tuesday, which will decide whether to allow doctors to “prescribe medication, at the request of a terminally ill patient meeting certain conditions, to end that person’s life.” He cites how a similar bill is being debated in New Jersey.

The falsehood that pain is a driving cause for seeking physician-assisted suicide is exposed: “Patients themselves say that the primary motive is not to escape physical pain but psychological distress; the main drivers are depression, hopelessness and fear of loss of autonomy and control.”  Furthermore, Dr. Emanuel debunks the myth that the over-use of advanced technology is the impetus for requiring physician-assisted suicide:  “If interest in legalizing euthanasia is tied to any trend in history, it is the rise of individualistic strains of thought that glorify personal choice, not the advances of high-tech medicine.”  A third misconception identified about physician-assisted suicide is that it will improve the end of life for everyone: “And who are the people most likely to be abused if assisted suicide is legalized? The poor, poorly educated, dying patients who pose a burden to their relatives.”  Lastly, but not exhaustively, Dr. Emanuel exposes the fact that physician-assisted suicide does not represent a “good death,” citing how a Dutch study indicates that complications from patients’ ineffective attempts at medication self-administration have resulted in direct interventions by physicians that constitute euthanasia.

This opinion piece is a “must read” for all needing to counter the falsehoods that are the bases for justifying the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. See http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/four-myths-about-doctor-assisted-suicide/#h[BtaIii,4,MAAFtv,1,6

Convention of the National Association of Catholic Nurses
Nashville, March 1-3, 2013

Dr. Marie Hilliard, NCBC Director of Bioethics and Public Policy and Board Member of NACN, invites all who are concerned about the future of health care to the 2013 Convention of the NACN:

"Catholic Nurses on the Front Lines: Christ's Ministry in Action."

Click here for the Flyer
Click here: Call for Posters

By Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann,  which appeared in the Leaven 10-19-2012

During the Oct. 11 debate, Vice President Joseph Biden looked into the camera and emphatically said: “With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution — Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital — none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the next day a statement in response to Vice President Biden’s claim that said in part: “This is not a fact. The HHS [Health and Human Services] mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain religious employers. That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital, or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

“HHS has proposed an additional accommodation for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as non-exempt. That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation to pay for contraception and to be a vehicle to get contraception. They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

“The USCCB continues to urge HHS in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.”

Why would Vice President Biden look the American people in the eye and say something that is clearly not true? It is difficult to believe that the vice president does not understand the HHS mandates and what they require from religious institutions. If this were so, it certainly reflects poorly on his competency.

Of course, the only other explanation is that he purposely misled the American people. Congressman Ryan asked the vice president a very pertinent question. If the rights of institutions are not being threatened, then why are Catholic dioceses, hospitals and colleges suing the federal government in 14 different jurisdictions on this very matter? Unfortunately, the vice president did not answer the question and the moderator of the debate failed to press him on this matter.

Just two weeks ago, President Obama, in speaking to campaign supporters at George Mason University, was bragging about the mandates. He said the following to an overwhelmingly friendly audience: “I don’t think a college student in Fairfax or Charlottesville should have to choose between textbooks or the preventive care she needs. That’s why we passed this law. And I am proud of it. It was the right thing to do. And we are going to keep it.”

I am all in favor of college students getting physicals, vaccinations, and other preventive screenings. However, this administration has defined preventive health care to include abortifacient drugs, contraceptives, and sterilizations. For contraceptives and sterilizations to be preventive health care, then fertility and pregnancy have to be considered diseases. If the administration’s definition of preventive health care is permitted to stand, then what is the cure to an unplanned pregnancy when the “preventive care” does not work? Logically, it must be abortion.

Recently, I was at an event where I spoke about the current threats to religious liberty. Afterwards, a man came up to me and said that he disagreed with what I said. I asked him: “What specifically do you disagree with?” He replied that he thought a nurse at a Catholic hospital should be able to get contraception as part of her health coverage.

I said: “Then, you believe that the church and her institutions should be coerced to provide something we believe to be immoral.” He replied: “Well, that’s your opinion.” I replied: “It is not an opinion. It is a fact that must follow if we accept the premise that the government should force Catholic institutions to provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives.”

He replied that he believed contraception actually prevented abortion. This is, indeed, a popular myth. The facts of the past 40+ years, however, contradict this politically correct dogma. As contraception became more readily available and as our government funded its provision to the poor with hundreds of millions of dollars annually, we have experienced epidemics of sexually-transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and abortion.
Abby Johnson was so convinced that contraception prevented abortion that she became a director of a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic. A couple years ago, Abby left Planned Parenthood because she was being pressured to increase the number of abortions at her clinic. Abby Johnson said that half of those seeking abortions at her clinic had been using contraceptives when they became pregnant.

Vice President Biden was asked how he squared his support for legalized abortion with his Catholic faith. Again, he looked into the camera and said he believed in the sanctity of human life, but he did not think it right to impose his moral beliefs on others. Afterwards, one of the pundits analyzing the debate applauded the vice president for having such a “thoughtful” position on abortion.

Believing that an unborn child is an innocent human life and supporting the rights of others to kill this innocent child is anything but thoughtful. It is intellectually and morally an incoherent position.

Today, do we think the position of those who knew slavery to be wrong, but upheld the rights of others to own slaves as a “thoughtful” position? Would we consider it “thoughtful” to be personally opposed to rape, but to support someone else’s choice to violate another person’s body? Do we think it is “thoughtful” to be against gangland drive-by shootings, but support another person’s right to gun down people on our streets?
The personally opposed but pro-choice position is not thoughtful. It is a euphemism, a nice sounding way, to describe one’s support for something that is not nice, but very ugly — the killing of an innocent child within a mother’s womb. Mr. Vice President, that is a fact!

© Copyright 2008 - 2012 The Leaven. All Rights Reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of The Leaven is expressly prohibited.

The National Bioethics Center congratulates Shinya Yamanaka for his much-deserved 2012 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. This scientist from Kyoto University, Japan, was awarded the prize for his discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent, that is, can become a highly flexible stem cell that can give rise to most cell types of the human body, but not another whole human being.

With this discovery, science now has an effective means for providing medical researchers with the types of stem cells that are needed for studies that may provide new cures for some of the most debilitating diseases. Of considerable note is the fact that the production of these cells does not involve the destruction of human embryos and so is free of any morally problematic associations with the taking of innocent human life.

Indeed, one of the motivating factors that drove Dr. Yamanaka to turn away from embryonic stem cell research and to make his inquiries into this very promising area was his realization that the embryos he was viewing through the microscope were in fact no different from those embryos who were once his own daughters, now grown and healthy. Other researchers, who had presented themselves as indifferent to the moral dimensions of this issue, also breathed a sigh of relief when this extraordinary new method of producing pluripotent stem cells appeared on the scene.

Sadly, those who seek absolute purity in this fallen world are already calling on their fellow Catholics to forgo any praise for this remarkable scientific achievement. They have detected minor and distant associations with the practice of embryonic stem cell research in Yamanaka's work and this has led them to find fault with virtually the entire field of pluripotent stem cell research. They seem unaware of the Church's teaching on cooperation or unwilling to apply those principles in any coherent way.

The work of Yamanaka, as well as the motivating force behind his efforts, deserves our highest praise and encouragement. We thank him and his entire research team for showing us a path forward through one of the most serious and challenging moral thickets of our times.

Edward J. Furton, Ph.D. NCBC Director of Publications

_____________________________________________________

It was no shock at all for me to learn that our diocesan native son, Paul Ryan, had been chosen to be a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. I am proud of his accomplishments as a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my prayers go with him and especially with his family as they endure the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign here in the United States. It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties. Any efforts on the part of any bishop or priest to do so should be set aside. And you can be assured that no priest who promotes a partisan agenda is acting in union with me or with the Universal Church.

It is the role of bishops and priests to teach principles of our faith, such that those who seek elected offices, if they are Catholics, are to form their consciences according to these principles about particular policy issues.

 However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.

Where intrinsic evil is not involved

In these most fundamental matters, a well-formed Catholic conscience, or the well-formed conscience of a person of good will, simply follows the conclusions demanded by the ecology of human nature and the reasoning process. A Catholic conscience can never take exception to the prohibition of actions which are intrinsically evil. Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.

However, a conscience well-formed according to reason or the Catholic faith, must also make choices where intrinsic evil is not involved. How best to care for the poor is probably the finest current example of this, though another would be how best to create jobs at a time when so many are suffering from the ravages of unemployment. In matters such as these, where intrinsic evil is not involved, the rational principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play. The principle of solidarity, simply stated, means that every human being on the face of the earth is my brother and my sister, my “neighbor” in the biblical sense. At the same time, the time-tested best way for assisting our neighbors throughout the world should follow the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason.

As one looks at issues such as the two mentioned above and seeks to apply the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, Catholics and others of good will can arrive at different conclusions. These are conclusions about the best means to promote the preferential option for the poor, or the best means to reach a lower percentage of unemployment throughout our country. No one is contesting here anyone’s right to the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. Nor is anyone contesting someone’s right to work and so provide for self and family. However there can be difference according to how best to follow the principles which the Church offers.

Making decisions as to the best political strategies, the best policy means, to achieve a goal, is the mission of lay people, not bishops or priests. As Pope Benedict himself has said, a just society and a just state is the achievement of politics, not the Church. And therefore Catholic laymen and women who are familiar with the principles dictated by human reason and the ecology of human nature, or non-Catholics who are also bound by these same principles, are in a position to arrive at differing conclusions as to what the best means are for the implementation of these principles — that is, “lay mission” for Catholics.

Thus, it is not up to me or any bishop or priest to approve of Congressman Ryan’s specific budget prescription to address the best means we spoke of. Where intrinsic evils are not involved, specific policy choices and political strategies are the province of Catholic lay mission. But, as I’ve said, Vice Presidential Candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic Social Teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above. Of that I have no doubt. (I mention this matter in obedience to Church Law regarding one’s right to a good reputation.)

Peace and reconciliation in coming months

I obviously didn’t choose the date for the announcement of Paul Ryan’s Vice Presidential Candidacy and as I express my pride in him and in what he has accomplished, I thought it best to move to discussion of the above matters sooner rather than later. No doubt it will be necessary to comment again on these principles in the days ahead for the sake of further clarification, and be assured that I will be eager to do so.

Above all, let us beg the Lord that divisions in our electorate will not be deepened so as to have a negative impact on pre-existing divisions within the Church during this electoral season. Let there be the peace and reconciliation that flow from charity on the part of all. Thank you for reading this. God Bless each one of you! Praised be Jesus Christ!

_____________________________________________________

Studies continue to support the contention that violating a woman by abortion is not a “preventive health service.”  A research article by Dr. Elard Koch and associates studied the impact of the legal prohibition of abortion in Chile.  One of the most significant findings of the study is that, contrary to widely-held assumptions, making abortion illegal in 1989 in Chile did not result in an increase in maternal mortality. In fact, just the opposite occurred: the maternal mortality rate has continued to decrease since that time from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (69.2% reduction).  

The Guttmacher Institute, the education, research, and policy arm of Planned Parenthood, has attempted to refute these findings, citing that significant restrictions on abortion existed before 1989 in Chile.  They further tried to impugn the scientific methodology of Dr. Koch’s study.  Dr. Koch successfully refutes these allegations. 

Furthermore, research supports the fact that abortion is detrimental to a woman’s psychological health, even when the fetus is experiencing a fatal anomaly:

Research suggests that women who terminate for fetal anomalies experience grief as intense as that of parents experiencing a spontaneous death of a baby (Zeanah 1993) and that aborting a baby with birth defects can be a “traumatic event … which entails the risk of severe and complicated grieving.” (Kersting 2004) One long-term study found that “a substantial number … showed pathological scores for post-traumatic stress.” (Korenromp et al, 2005) And a recent follow up study found that 14 months after the termination, nearly 17 percent of women were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as post-traumatic stress, anxiety or depression. (Kersting 2009) Termination is not a shortcut through grief. In contrast, parental responses to perinatal hospice are “overwhelmingly positive” (Calhoun & Hoeldtke 2000), and parents report being emotionally and spiritually prepared for their infant’s death and feeling “a sense of gratitude and peace surrounding the brief life of their child” (Sumner 2001). From: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/04/abortion-in-the-case-of-a-terminal-prenatal-diagnosis/.

In fact, recently the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis upheld a 2005 South Dakota statute that requires doctors to inform women who seek abortion of the significantly  increased risk of suicidal ideation.  Despite claims to the contrary, research supports the right of women, under informed consent, to know of this risk.  Specifically, in a review of the research of abortion-associated suicide, Shadigian and Bauer report that researchers have found that suicide is 3 to 6 times greater in women obtaining an induced abortion than in women who deliver at term (E. Shadigian and S. Bauer, “Pregnancy-Associated Death: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Homicide and Suicide,” OB GYN Survey, Vol. 60, No 3, 2005.)

Thus, not only does abortion not reduce maternal mortality, but in fact, can be detrimental to a woman’s health and endanger her life. 

_____________________________________________________

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has submitted a response to the request for public comment from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) as OPTN/UNOS seeks to amend the OPTN Organ Procurement and Transplant Network Policies.

The NCBC has grave concerns pertaining to the integrity of the process to assure proper consideration of public comments.  In 2011 a notice for comment was posted by OPTN/UNOS concerning the plan to Update and Clarify Language in the DCD [Donation after Cardiac/Circulatory Death] Model Elements. The original call for comment was to end on June 10, 2011; but due to inadequate notice to assure true public awareness, a second call for comment was issued, with a deadline to receive comments of June 15, 2012. On June 22, 2012, long before any meaningful consideration or vote pertaining to comments already received could occur either by the OPTN/UNOS Board of Directors (which did not meet until June 25–26, 2012) or the OPTN Organ Procurement Committee (OPO Committee) or the OPTN Ethics Committee, yet another call for comment was announced concerning a proposed “OPTN Policy Plain Language Rewrite” (Policies Rewrite). The notice for this call for comment states that the Policies Rewrite did “not make any substantive changes to the content of . . . current policies.”  A review of the current DCD Model Elements and the proposed Polices Rewrite draws into question the accuracy of this statement.  The NCBC has raised significant concerns about policies pertaining to Donation after Cardiac/Circulatory Death (DCD) concerning donor selection,  informed consent, and the Dead Donor Rule.

Currently the Policies Rewrite,  presented as not containing substantive changes, does contain un-adopted proposed changes to the DCD Model Elements. The NCBC is requesting of the OPTN/UNOS, to correct any procedural errors in soliciting public comment concerning the proposed Policies Rewrite, that the OPTN/UNOS should immediately withdraw the proposal  from public review until the portions relating to the DCD Model Elements are revised to reflect current policy accurately. 

Please e-mail OPTN/UNOS by August 31, 2012 requesting that “OPTN/UNOS  correct any procedural errors in soliciting public comment concerning the proposed Policies Rewrite and that OPTN/UNOS immediately withdraw the proposal from public review until the portions relating to the DCD Model Elements are revised to reflect current policy accurately.” 

It is imperative that all of us are engaged in these important regulatory matters.

_____________________________________________________

Dear Friends of the NCBC,

What follows is a special edition of our publication Ethics & Medics.  It contains some ethical reflections on possible responses to the implementation of the HHS Mandate.  There could well be other morally licit ways of dealing with this unjust mandate.  The current administration has placed many citizens in a terribly difficult ethical quandry as they struggle to be true to their conscience and still provide for the health needs of those who work for them.  We welcome responses to our reflections and hope they might be helpful as some of our readers attempt to navigate their way through this unjust situation with integrity.

To read the special edition of Ethics & Medics click here.

 
John M. Haas, Ph.D.
President

On June 27, 2012, Abington Health and Holy Redeemer Health System made a historic, enthusiastic announcement that these two providers of health care planned to join forces to serve the best interest of the communities in northern Philadelphia and several suburbs. Their expressed aims were “meeting the needs of the communities we serve in the most efficient and effective way possible” and “committing resources to improve the health of the community including the vulnerable and the poor,” pursuing a “shared vision to come together . . . to better serve the community.”¹ Yet on July 18, 2012, a mere three weeks later, they conceded that these bold efforts that “would have served our community well” had been halted “in the best interest of both organizations.”² It is telling to note the best interest invoked in each statement. What caused the change from serving the best interest of the community (by working together) to safeguarding the best interest of each organization (by staying apart)?

The loudest voices opposing the partnership believed that Catholic “restrictions” on culturally and legally accepted medical procedures, specifically on direct abortions, would be an unacceptable form of imposition on a secular entity. Thousands of people, including some outside the community as well as some patients and community members, signed a petition opposing the partnership; indeed, some threatened to boycott the organization by going elsewhere for care.³ Many Abington Health physicians made their opposition to the proposed collaboration vividly clear,⁴ with several even signaling that they would cease to provide medical services through Abington Health if the proposed limitations on abortion were to materialize.⁵ It is surely legitimate for these individuals to make their thoughts known, just as pro-life witnesses have long voiced opposition to the provision of direct abortions at Abington Memorial Hospital, yet there is a certain irony that a physician would threaten to withhold his or her medical services from the local community because the organization withholds one disputed “service” (direct abortion) from the community. Clearly, a loss of physicians in various specialties would not aid community access to a full range of health care services, which is the good they contend would be violated. Should one procedure, which is ultimately a disservice to women and their unborn children, be allowed to trump the indisputably vaster array of health care services in this way?

It is truly regrettable that intense outside pressure seems to have caused these thoughtful and well-intentioned efforts at improving health care quality and delivery to fall apart. Some have even called for the resignation of Laurence Merlis, CEO of Abington Health,⁶ as if to suggest that visionary leadership working to find ways of respectfully collaborating with religious health care institutions were undignified and insulting to the community. How sad.

It is more unfortunate that much of the public and medical furor is based on misinformation and misunderstandings regarding the applications of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), which are designed to protect patients’ dignity and rights and safeguard the integrity of the profession of healing. This lack of clarity is a real concern throughout the United States, especially as collaborative arrangements have increasingly become a trend in light of rising medical costs, the need for economies of scale, new regulations from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,⁷ efforts to improve quality of care and access, and the future direction of health care, which will cease to be hospital-centric and will focus on “preserving and improving health across a range of services—from preventive care to physician care to home and long-term care.”⁸

Collaborative relationships with Catholic health care institutions always require respect for Catholic identity, but that respect does not always mean the cooperating partner must fully comply with the ERDs. Depending on how the collaborative arrangement is structured, it may or may not require restrictions on immoral procedures at the partner institution. For example, a true “merger” will always require full compliance with the ERDs, since the two institutions consolidate into one, but most proposed arrangements are only partnerships or other relationships that involve lesser degrees of institutional integration. These less radical initiatives allow greater respect for the identities of both institutions, Catholic and non-Catholic, so that they can work together in the vast majority of areas in which they share values, while retaining their key differences in other areas. Immoral procedures at the non-Catholic entity may or may not need to be ruled out based on the principle of cooperation with evil and concerns about causing moral scandal. If time and effort are duly devoted to exploring potential business models and proper contractual language, morally licit solutions may be found; however, fine distinctions are crucial. Regrettably, such careful attention is often of little interest to the broader public or the media. This is unfortunate for the many communities that would stand to benefit from such health care partnerships in manifold ways: more comprehensive and coordinated care, higher quality, lower costs, greater long-term health, better chronic disease management, and improved access to services across all ages and demographics.⁹

Make no mistake: both Abington Health and Holy Redeemer Health System will surely continue to work their hardest “to seek opportunities to enhance the health of the communities,”¹⁰ as they always have, independently. Yet a great opportunity for those communities to listen, learn, and engage in reasoned discussion about the actual prospects and consequences of a partnership—and the implications of the Catholic vision regarding the value of the human person and the art of healing—was sidelined by a harsh firestorm of public opposition that left little room for thoughtful exchanges about pros and cons. Surely the leadership of these two health systems, which has been contemplating a partnership for some time, at least deserved the opportunity to develop more details on the specifics of the proposed arrangement. Could it have ultimately worked out? Perhaps. Would it have pleased every single member of the community? Not likely—there is always someone left feeling dissatisfied with any change. But the essential question is this: Would it have been an improvement for the community as a whole in terms of health care access, quality, availability, delivery, efficiency, affordability, awareness, disease treatment and prevention, and the defining facets of medical care, making it worth the necessary sacrifices and challenges for each institution while respecting each one’s identity? The leadership at Abington and Holy Redeemer had the hope and courage to believe so and were working earnestly to find out. Now we will likely never know.

John A. Di Camillo, Be.L., NCBC Staff Ethicist

There have been questions raised in some quarters regarding the relationship of The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) to grants awarded by Catholic Relief Services (CRS). In short, Catholic Relief Services occasionally asks the NCBC to do ethical analyses of grant requests so that CRS can avoid contributing to evil if they provide a grant to an organization to accomplish some great good, such as feeding the starving, but the same organization may also be engaged in immoral activities in other areas. The NCBC does not “approve” or “make” grants. That is the task and the responsibility of the board and the officials of CRS. The NCBC submits its ethical analyses when requested as part of the grant review process of CRS. The NCBC does its consultations in confidence. However, since CRS made its involvement public, the NCBC would like to address the situation in greater detail for the sake of clarity.

CARE and Catholic Relief Services are two of the oldest and most respected international relief agencies in the world. They have a relationship reaching out to the starving, malnourished, and needy that goes back decades. They have worked closely together to serve these populations because there are situations in which CARE has infrastructure, personnel, and capabilities on the ground where CRS does not. Likewise, Catholic Relief Services is a worldwide relief organization with infrastructure and personnel in places that CARE cannot reach. As a result, they often provide grants to one another for very specific charitable purposes that either one of them is incapable of achieving alone.

It is true that CRS provided CARE with $5.3 million in grants to bring food to the starving and malnourished and to provide clean drinking water in situations of great need. The grants, however, went both ways. In 2010 CARE provided CRS with $4 million in grants to provide assistance to those whom Catholic Relief Services could effectively reach and CARE could not.

Regrettably, over time, CARE came to believe that it could address issues of poverty, hunger, and unjust distribution of society’s goods by reducing the number of those who might experience poverty and hunger. CARE sadly came to promote contraception and other policies that are contrary to Catholic teaching in developing nations of the world. This made it more difficult for Catholic Relief Services to continue to collaborate with them. However, to serve those in need through the historic partnership with CARE, Catholic Relief Services carefully assesses the grants and sub-grants involving CARE.

To assist them in this task, CRS sought the assistance of The National Catholic Bioethics Center, which has earned the trust of the bishops for its fidelity to Catholic teaching and which has demonstrated an ability to apply the Church’s moral principles in situations of collaboration with non-Catholics.

The Catholic moral tradition has reflected on and developed what has come to be known as the Principle of Material Cooperation with Evil. Acknowledging that the Church is “in the world but not of the world,” the Principle of Material Cooperation provides guidance for Catholics in a fallen world as they seek to achieve some good purposes which would never be accomplished except for their collaboration with others engaged in activities considered immoral by the Church. This is perhaps most obvious to committed Catholics who pay their taxes even while they realize that the government will be spending some of their tax dollars on activities Catholics find to be immoral and even abhorrent.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center reviewed a number of grants and provided CRS with its moral analyses as to whether or not, in its judgment, these grants were morally acceptable. All the NCBC does, at the request of bishops and others in authority, is to attempt to apply the teachings of the Church to concrete circumstances and to use its best judgment as to whether the possible cooperation would achieve some great good without contributing to the evil that the other party might also be involved in.

If a Catholic would agree with the evil another person were committing and would cooperate with that person, he would be guilty of what the moralists call formal cooperation in evil. This is always unacceptable. If a Catholic were to cooperate with someone to achieve a great good, such as feeding starving populations, even while that other person were doing something immoral, such as providing contraception through another program, could the Catholic do it? It depends on a number of factors. If there were no other effective way to get the food to the starving population and if money were provided only for that purpose with none of it going to contraception, then it might be possible to do so. This would be called mediate (i.e., indirect) material cooperation with evil and could be allowed if there were a great good to be obtained and a great evil avoided and one did not contribute to the evil being done by the other party.

When The National Catholic Bioethics Center carefully reviewed the sub-grant relationship with CARE, it came to the conclusion that the grants would likely save lives and that the funds could not be made available through an agency other than CARE because of the personnel and institutions they had in place.  The NCBC also concluded that the money could not be used for any other purpose than that for which CRS had given it. Indeed, it would be illegal to do so. Consequently the NCBC came to the conclusion that providing such a grant would be acceptable through the application of the Principle of Material Cooperation.

At the core of the NCBC analyses was the belief, based on the facts provided by CRS, that the grants provided would be used exclusively for good purposes that could not be effectively realized by CRS otherwise.

Some have said that CRS was incapable of restricting the use of their funds to the good works which were being done by CARE. Money used for those good works would “free up” funds to be used for immoral purposes. However, the grants given by CRS do not go into some general pool of funds that can be moved around or used for other purposes. This would be in violation of the grant agreement and of federal law, specifically the Code of Federal Regulations 226, which requires that federal funds going to non-governmental entities can only be used for the purposes for which they are given. The NCBC concluded that great care was taken by CRS to see that funds were used only for the purposes designated, i.e., assisting the poor, the malnourished, and the starving.

However, there is another dimension to the Principle of Material Cooperation: the consideration of the risk of scandal. Even if cooperation with an evildoer to achieve some great good were morally legitimate it still could not be done if the action of the Catholic would lead others to believe that the Catholic Church were indifferent to the evil, such as, for example, contraception.

In this case, the NCBC was gravely concerned about the risk of scandal that could arise from a Catholic agency cooperating with an organization that consistently took such strong public positions at odds with the Catholic Church, such as advocating contraception and abortion. We strongly cautioned CRS of the problems of misunderstanding that could arise with a grant to CARE and urged them to repudiate the public advocacy of abortion and contraception by the leadership of CARE. Incidentally, at its website, under Frequently Asked Questions, CARE now states: “CARE does not fund, support, or perform abortions.” The NCBC welcomes that statement which could not be found at the website of CARE when the review was done. At that time there was, however, the congressional testimony of the President of CARE, Dr. Helene Gayle, calling for the rescinding of the “Mexico City Policy,” which forbids the use of U.S. foreign aid for abortions. That statement is still at the website. It was because of such public positions antithetical to the positions taken by the U. S. bishops that the NCBC thought that there should be a public repudiation of such CARE positions by CRS. CRS responded to our concerns about the risk of scandal by incorporating into their mission statement the following:

As a part of the Universal Church, Catholic institutions are our partners of preference in our work. To reach all those who need our help, we also participate in humanitarian initiatives undertaken by a wide range of groups, such as governments, other faith communities and secular institutions. Although some positions and practices of these institutions are not always consistent with the full range of Catholic teaching, CRS' association with them is always and only focused on activities that are fully consistent with Catholic teaching. Furthermore, CRS neither facilitates, endorses nor enables any violation of those teachings. CRS and its board of bishops and laypersons have a careful review system to ensure fidelity to Catholic moral teaching and to ensure that all funds under CRS' direct control are used only for purposes complying with that teaching.

In submitting its report to CRS on January 12, 2012, the NCBC concluded the work it had done for CRS with respect to the CARE grants that it had reviewed. CRS obviously assumes the responsibility for the grants which it awards. 

_____________________________________________________

Staff Ethicist
Starting date: October 1, 2012

Click to download position description. 

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) is seeking a full time ethicist to join its professional staff in Philadelphia beginning October 1, 2012 (or earlier). Applicant must be a practicing Catholic who is committed to magisterial teaching, trained in the Catholic moral tradition and conversant with medical terminology. An earned doctorate or other terminal degree is required. The ideal candidate will have teaching and public speaking experience and be published in a scholarly journal. Reading proficiency in one or more modern languages is desirable and standard computer skills required (esp. MS Word and Power Point).

Additional desirable qualifications include:

• Significant teaching/public speaking experience.
• Excellent verbal and written communication skills.
• Some clinical ethical experience in a health care setting.

Specific responsibilities include:

• Management of institutional consultation services for health systems/hospitals that have agreements of service with The NCBC.
• Participation in ethical consultation services on rotation (telephone and e-mail). This includes 24/7 emergency consultation rotation for one week each month.
• Teaching within The NCBC annual seminars, speaking engagements, and other educational programs.
• Willingness to publish in NCBC publications.
• Other institutional consultation services as assigned.
• Travel as required.

The NCBC was founded in 1972 to apply the moral tradition of the Roman Catholic Church to developments in health care and the life sciences. The Center’s highly trained staff consists of five full time ethicists and two adjunct ethicists, each of whom holds at least one doctorate, a small publications department, and additional administrative and support staff. Applicants are encouraged to familiarize themselves with The NCBC website (www.ncbcenter.org).

Applications should include the following:

• Letter of interest with a narrative of the applicant’s background and professional experience.
• Curriculum Vitae.
• Three samples of the applicant’s research and writing on both the popular and academic levels.
• Three letters of recommendation or names of references.

Applications should be directed by surface mail to Dr. John M. Haas, President, or by electronic mail to jhaas@ncbcenter.org

All applications will be received and held in confidence.
Deadline: August 16, 2012

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has created a method of instantaneous notification, via texting and e-mailing, to those committed to protecting the right to religious liberty.  An invitation to stay connected was extended by Archbishop William Lori, Chairman of the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, at the closing Mass of the Fortnight for Freedom on July 4, 2012, at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. Archbishop Lori invited all interested in protecting religious liberty to stay connected by texting the word FREEDOM (or LIBERTAD in Spanish) to 377377 on their mobile devices. Through this mechanism all interested persons can receive timely information and alerts to stay engaged in this ongoing initiative to protect the First Amendment right to the Free Exercise of Religion.  Also, the USCCB web page contains tremendous resources to help everyone to stay informed, to educate others, and to have voices heard.  These materials, in both English and Spanish, include videos, written resources, and web-based methods of education and action: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/fortnight-freedom-images.cfm.

The phenomenal homily by Archbishop Charles Chaput (Philadelphia), given at the closing of the Fortnight Mass, also is available: Archbishop Chaput clearly articulated the true meaning of the often misunderstood concepts of religious liberty and the separation of church and state, using the Gospel parable of “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22: 15-22).  As Archbishop Chaput shared with all at that Mass:

"We need to render unto Caesar those things that bear his image. But we need to render ourselves unto God — generously, zealously, holding nothing back. To the extent we let God transform us into his own image, we will — by the example of our lives — fulfill our duty as citizens of the United States, but much more importantly, as disciples of Jesus Christ." 

—Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap, Archbishop of Philadelphia, Fortnight Closing Homily, July 4, 2012

 _____________________________________________________

The National Catholic Bioethics Center is deeply disappointed to learn that virtually the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) remains standing in the wake of the June 28, 2012 U. S. Supreme Court ruling.  The ACA includes provisions that violate respect for human life and dignity and the rights of conscience, and that undermine the principle of subsidiarity.  Of course, the Court did not rule that the law is good in its entirety or even that it can be effectively implemented and sustained.  It merely ruled that it does not violate the Federal Constitution.

We find it odd that the Supreme Court, having found an insufficient basis to judge in favor of the ACA on Commerce Clause grounds, chose to accept the secondary justification offered by the administration, namely, that the mandate is a tax on the American people. As noted in the minority’s dissent, it is dangerous to ignore the legislative intent of the Congress in a case such as this.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center remains opposed to the law not because universal health care coverage is somehow undesirable as a goal, but predominantly because the ACA will provide coverage for abortion on demand and violate the conscience of employers and enrollees who will be forced to subsidize abortion.  There also is little protection of health care providers who may be coerced to provide contraceptives and abortifacients.  Furthermore, the Health and Human Services mandate has come to be woven into the fabric of the ACA as a post-provision that poisons the well of authentic health care and radically contradicts respect for conscience, which is particularly important in healthcare settings where the human person is vulnerable and easily violated. The National Catholic Bioethics Center thus remains compelled to oppose the measure in its entirety until a proper respect for the First Amendment, religious freedom, rights of conscience, and human life are properly incorporated into the law, and safeguarded in medical decision-making.

From the perspective of social justice, this law jeopardizes the principle of subsidiarity, which, like the principle of federalism upon which our Constitution was written, holds that services ought to be provided by those social agencies and instrumentalities of government that are closest to the point of delivery.  Tremendous dangers lie in health care being orchestrated by the highest level of social organization, our federal government.

The Bishops, many Catholics, and others of conscience remain deeply troubled by this law and will continue to work to ensure the protection of the consciences of those providing health care and other social services to those in need.

 _____________________________________________________

There has been much talk erroneously concluding that the New York Times has proven that the abortifacient effect of the ingredients in Plan B (levonorgestrel) and ­ellaOne (ulipristal) 1 do not prevent implantation of the ­conceived human embryo.2 Interestingly, the New York Times ­journalist Pam Belluck initially says, “Labels ­inside every box of morning-after pills, drugs widely used to prevent pregnancy after sex, say they may work by ­blocking ­fertilized eggs from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Respected medical authorities, including the ­National ­Institutes of Health, and the Mayo Clinic, have said the same thing on their Web sites.” The journalist then ­proceeds to negate these respected opinions. The facts she uses to support her conclusions are, at best, incomplete....

Click to continue reading

__________________________________________________

The science used to cast homosexual parenting in a neutral or even positive light has proved unsound. Two recent studies, published in Social Science Research, challenge a position that is summarized in the words of the American Psychological Association’s 2005 brief on same-sex parenting:

[T]he evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

The first study, called the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), is authored by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin. It boasts data from a significantly larger, randomized, heterogeneous, and nationally representative sample with more adequate comparison groups than past studies. The outcomes were reported by adult subjects themselves rather than by parents. Regnerus draws no conclusions about causal relationships, recognizes the major limits of his study, and acknowledges confounding variables. His conclusions can be summarized in two simple points: (1) “the claim that no notable differences exist [in child development outcomes] must go,” and (2) “children appear most apt to succeed well as adults . . . when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”

The second study, authored by Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, shows how not one of the 59 major same-sex parenting studies cited by the APA in its 2005 brief meets the statistical standards necessary to prove the “null hypothesis,” or the conclusion that there are no significant differences, between same-sex parenting and married biological parenting. In sum, all 59 are likely guilty of a statistical Type II error: an unwarranted conclusion that there are no differences.

The two new studies, taken together, emphasize two points. The first is that more reliable and statistically powerful studies are still necessary to draw meaningful scientific conclusions about the small size effects of same-sex parenting versus other forms of parenting. The Regnerus study, despite various shortcomings, is a dramatic step in the right direction. As an editorial in Deseret News aptly notes, “The NFSS appears to provide researchers a framework for . . . sound rigorous social science with regard to the vital issue of family structure and child well-being.” Despite the recognized imperfections of the Regnerus study, it can surely be said, in the words of Patrick Fagan of the Family Research Council, that “if you can’t draw conclusions from it, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell you can draw conclusions from those other [same-sex parenting] studies.” Douglas Allen, a Canadian economist and expert on same-sex marriage studies, agrees: “If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out, then practically everything else in the field has to go with it.”

The second point is an affirmation of the traditional family structure. In the words of Charles Cooke of the National Review, “the major takeaway from the [NFSS] report is less an indictment that same-sex households are a negative thing and more an affirmation that intact, biological households are a positive thing.” According to the Deseret News, it confirms “what biology, sociology, custom and religion have long indicated: family structure counts and the intact married biological family is the healthiest structure for nurturing the next generation.” In his conclusion, Regnerus states: “[T]he NFSS clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married.”

In sum, the existing science does not provide definitive answers and solid empirical support specifically for or against same-sex parenting per se. Regnerus and Marks have opened the doors to greater rigor, but social science researchers expect it will take years—and perhaps decades—before the impact of same-sex parenting becomes apparent. In the meantime, the debate shall go forward based on principles—so let reason, seeking to understand the human person and his true good, take to the field on both sides, ever wary of the manipulative use of scientific data to support unfounded claims that the research available “is accepted beyond serious debate” in the scientific community. Until proven otherwise, one point remains clear: when it comes to children’s outcomes, no other family structure is healthier or even comparable to married biological parenting.

John A. Di Camillo, Be.L., NCBC Staff Ethicist

_____________________________________________________

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), partnering with the National Catholic Partnership on Disability (I Chair the NCPD Ethics Committee) has developed daily activities in which individuals and groups can participate during the Fortnight For Freedom, beginning on June 21 and ending on July 4, 2012.  In response to the U.S. Health and Human Services’ (HHS) mandate, that employers violate their constitutionally protected religious freedom and provide contraceptive coverage to employees, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty released a statement entitled "Our First, Most Cherished Liberty". The document outlines recent threats to religious liberty in the United States and abroad while endorsing an upcoming “Fortnight For Freedom” to defend “the most cherished of American freedoms.”  The USCCB has asked each of us to participate in some of the many activities the Bishops have suggested to protect this basic right.  The Bishops also have asked us to develop our own individual ways of sharing in this Fortnight For Freedom.  Thus, the NCBC and the NCPD have developed 14 activities, one per day, for you to engage in locally, that demonstrate solidarity with this national initiative. 

Contained on the NCPD website at  http://www.ncpd.org/fortnight are materials that can be printed out as daily posters, as well as a Fortnight Calendar that contains the daily activities, which can be printed off and shared with others.

We hope you take advantage of these resources and share them with others.  The threat to religious freedom is real, and our voices, actions, and prayers are urgently needed. 

_______________________________________________________________

On May 12, 2012, Dr. Marie T. Hilliard, Director of Bioethics and Public Policy for The National Catholic Bioethics Center, received the Doctor of Christian Ethics degree, honoris causa, from the Franciscan University of Steubenville  and provided to the 191 graduate degree recipients the Commencement Address.  Dr. Hilliard is pictured with Franciscan University President, Father Terence Henry, TOR, General Michael V. Hayden, USAF (Ret.), recipient of the Doctor Public Administration degree, honoris causa, on that same day, and Franciscan University Board of Trustees Chair, Fr. Nicholas Polichnowski, TOR.

Please see http://goo.gl/ROsSc for the program and text of Dr. Hilliard's address.

__________________________________________________________

Joining with 43 Catholic agencies, engaged in the numerous ministries of the Church, the Archdiocese of Washington is suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for violating the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, which protects the free exercise of religion.  On May 21, 2012 a total of twelve lawsuits were filed in various jurisdictions of the United States, representing these 43 Catholic ministries.  Cardinal Wuerl empathized that the issue is not about contraception, readily available at little or no cost throughout the United States, but about religious liberty.  He rightly asserts that this mandate’s religious exemption is the narrowest ever adopted in federal law, citing how it does not include Catholic hospitals, schools and social service program.  As Cardinal Wuerl states: “The Catholic faith finds its fullest expression in a loving act of sacrifice by one stranger for another.”  He explained: “Imagine the church’s surprise, then, to be told by the federal government that when a Catholic organization serves its neighbors, it isn’t really practicing its religion.”  To read his complete Op Ed , see http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protecting-our-catholic-conscience-in-the-public-square/2012/05/23/gJQAj05XkU_story.html.

________________________________________________

Last August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandated that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act almost all private health plans are to include with no co-pay “preventive services for women.” These “services” will include sterilization, all FDA-approved birth control (such as the IUD, Depo-Provera, ‘morning-after’ pills, and the abortion-inducing drug Ella), and the “well-women preventive visits,” described as including prenatal screening for genetic or developmental conditions (thus, potentially “preventing” the birth of babies deemed unfit eugenically, since there are presently no available prenatal treatments for most of these conditions).  The HHS exemption for a religious employer is so narrow that it is virtually meaningless.  Despite an outcry from persons who respect our United States Constitution, on February 10 President Obama adopted this policy as a final rule “without change” (Federal Register, 2/15/12, 8725). Religious organizations which cannot qualify for the exemption will have an extra year to comply; but before the end of that period, an additional rule will be issued to make sure that their employees receive the mandated coverage despite the employer’s objection.

Furthermore, on March 21, 2012, HHS issued a notice proposing additional rulemaking, in which the Administration suggests various ways the new mandate can be applied to religious organizations (Federal Register, 3/21/12, 16501-08). The public has until June 19 to submit comments. The fundamental legal and moral concerns about government intrusion into religious ministries are not addressed. Whatever funding and administrative mechanisms are ultimately chosen, many religious institutions that serve the common good will be forbidden to provide their own employees or students with health coverage consistent with their values.

In response to the HHS mandate, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty released an Easter week statement titled “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.” The document outlines recent threats to religious liberty in the United States and abroad, while endorsing an upcoming “Fortnight for Freedom” to defend “the most cherished of American freedoms.” It states that “To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other.”  It continues with an excellent historical review, which begins in 1634 with Maryland’s “experiment in religious toleration” under Catholic Lord Baltimore, and continues that historical review to the present day.  The USCCB cautions that we are to learn from history, pointing to when the Colony of Maryland was placed under royal control, and the Church of England became the established religion.   Catholics lost political rights, Catholic chapels were closed, and Catholics were restricted to practicing their faith in their homes.  The Catholic community lived under these conditions until the American Revolution.  However, with the ratification of the United States Constitution, and three years later the ratification of the Bill of Rights, which recognized as the first liberty, religious freedom, religious liberty slowly began to flourish.  Thus, by 1887 the Archbishop of Baltimore, Cardinal James Gibbons could report to the Holy See on the great progress the Catholic Church had made in the United States, which he attributed to the "civil liberty we enjoy in our enlightened republic."  Indeed, he made a bolder claim, namely that "in the genial atmosphere of liberty [the Church] blossoms like a rose." [Cardinal James Gibbons, Address upon taking possession of Santa Maria in Trastevere, March 25, 1887.] Yet, we are witnessing the erosion of these essential liberties with the recent attacks by our government including: the HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs; state immigration laws; efforts to alter Church structure and governance; discrimination against Christian students on campus; revoking the ministries of Catholic foster care and adoption services; discrimination against small church congregations; and discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. The USCCB cautions that “religious liberty requires constant vigilance and protection, or it will disappear.”

In recognition of the struggles for religious liberty around the world, even leading to martyrdom, the USCCB highlights how Catholics in America cannot defend the martyrs of our day abroad if we allow the violation of our own religious liberty:

If religious liberty is eroded here at home, American defense of religious liberty abroad is less credible. And one common threat, spanning both the international and domestic arenas, is the tendency to reduce the freedom of religion to the mere freedom of worship. Therefore, it is our task to strengthen religious liberty at home, in this and other respects, so that we might defend it more vigorously abroad. To that end, American foreign policy, as well as the vast international network of Catholic agencies, should make the promotion of religious liberty an ongoing and urgent priority.

The Bishops are calling for a Fortnight for Freedom: specifically that the fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day, be dedicated to a great hymn of prayer for our country. They point out that during this period our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome. Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. For more information see http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/our-first-most-cherished-liberty.cfm.

In Congress, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) would ensure that those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” On March 1, the Senate voted to table this bill when it was presented as Senate Amendment 1520 to the Transportation Authorization Bill (Vote Number 24).  We need to urge Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, and restore our fundamental right to religious liberty.

Thus, this Call to Action requires that our voices be heard on two fronts: at HHS regarding the March 21 rulemaking notice and in Congress with a message in support of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.  To have your voice heard go to: http://nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292.

For more information on religious liberty and conscience rights, see: www.usccb.org/conscience.

________________________________________________

Archbishop William E. Lori, newly appointed Archbishop of Baltimore, and Chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, has produced an excellent primer on the U.S. Health and Human Services’ mandate.  This mandate will  force employers to violate conscience and religious beliefs by requiring employers to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for their employees.  The primer is available on the web page of the Bridgeport Diocese, for which Archbishop Lori remains Apostolic Administrator until his installation as Archbishop of Baltimore, MD on May 16, 2012.  See: http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/files/fcc-pdfs/Acalltocatholics.pdf.  The NCBC urges all to read this clear explanation of the implications for all Americans of this mandate.  Furthermore, this document corrects the false information, provided by some advocates for the violation of natural moral law by the Catholic Church, that the so-called “accommodation” by the White House has rectified these violations of the First Amendment of our precious U.S. Constitution.

________________________________________________

The National Catholic Bioethics Center posts here Thomas Jefferson’s "Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom," drafted in 1779, and passed by the Virginia Assembly in 1786. The document is recognized as one of the most important precursors to the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The statement of principle enunciated by Jefferson, especially as summarized in the second to last paragraph, is of particular relevance today.

The administration’s claim that is has the authority to define what is and what is not a religious institution is a violation of the letter and the spirit of this great document. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Roman Catholicism is an establishment of religion, and so protected under this amendment, but that has not stopped the U.S. Congress from passing a law, namely, the Affordable Care Act, which the president and the agencies under his executive authority have used to declare that Catholic hospitals, charities, and educational institutions are not religious institutions. A religious institution, according to this administration, is defined as one that hires and ministers solely to members of its own faith. Not only is this a false understanding of the Christian religion, which no member of that faith  would recognize, but more importantly, it is not the province of the federal government to make such judgments. That authority has not been given to the Congress under our Constitution. Neither, therefore, does it belong to the president, regardless of whatever laws the legislative branch may enact to the contrary.

Whether the Affordable Care Act will survive judicial scrutiny, we are not qualified to say, but we are certain that it would not survive the scrutiny of America's greatest champion of religious liberty.

The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

________________________________________________

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Archbishop of New York, joined an alliance of over 500 Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Latter-Day Saints, Jews, and Muslims in rejecting the so called accommodation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in its mandate requiring employers to pay for, either directly or indirectly, insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives. The statement (available here) is entitled "Unacceptable" and has been signed by leading scholars, religious liberty advocates and religious leaders from a multitude of faiths. Its original drafters are Professor Mary Ann Glendon, of the Harvard Law School; Professor Robert P. George of Princeton; Yuval Levin, Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center; Professor O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame; and, President of Catholic University, John Garvey. The list of signatories also includes people from across the political spectrumCliberals, conservatives, and people fitting into neither category. This is an unprecedented coming together of people to defend religious liberty and the rights of conscience against a deeply misguided and unjust governmental action.

We do not usually bother with the National Catholic Reporter, the newspaper of record for those who place their faith in dissent from the Catholic Church, but a recent column by Jamie L. Manson caught our eye. “What an Abortifacient Is -- and What It Isn't” (Feb. 20, 2012).

If one of the well-known truisms of ethics, as Manson avers at the beginning of her column, is that good moral judgments follow from good facts, then it should come as no surprise that one of the least-known truisms is that bad moral judgments follow from a narrow ideology.

Manson, of course, is flacking for the Obama administration. The US Bishops have come out strongly against the HHS mandate obliging all Catholic institutions to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs to their employees, in violation of the First Amendment and the rights of conscience. So, naturally, the National Catholic Reporter takes the opposite side.

Manson’s aim is to show that abortifacient drugs do not have abortifacient effects. This is admittedly a difficult task. Consider the following whopper: “Now, just because an egg is fertilized doesn't necessarily mean that it will develop into an embryo. For that to happen, the fertilized egg must be implanted into the endometrium that lines the uterus.”

This is presented as "scientific evidence." I don't know where Ms. Manson purchases her scientific textbooks, but I have the feeling they are printed by the Guttmacher Institute. The National Institute of Health (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) gives us a clear definition: “Embryo: in humans, the developing organism from the time of fertilization until the end of the eighth week of gestation, when it is called a fetus.”^[i] Implantation does not figure in this definition.

If a fertilized egg is not an embryo, what is it? Fertilization, according to standard medical dictionaries, results in a zygote, which is the earliest stage of the human embryo.[ii] But not for Ms. Manson. For her, fertilized eggs float in fallopian tubes, waiting for a chance to implant and then become human beings.  It is a magical transformation. Of course, some of these floating non-embryos implant in the wrong place, such as the fallopian tube, resulting in an ectopic pregnancy. What are we to make of these? Are they human or just implanted balls of tissue? Manson’s science cannot provide an answer.

It is not intended to do so. No one looks to the National Catholic Reporter for scientifically-based argument. What matters for Manson and the newspaper is that the current administration be successful in its effort to force religiously affiliated hospitals, educational institutions, and charities to violate their own religious teachings. That comes first; the facts (such as they are) second.

Thus we are told that “the reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives.” The first half of her claim ignores data on the Health and Human Services own website, which states that “if fertilization does occur, the IUD keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus.”[iii] The second ignores the product labeling and package inserts that come with Plan B.[iv] But if you think science tells us that fertilization does not produce an embryo, then you have already decided to ignore the facts.

The height of this ideological effort is in Manson’s defense of ellaOne, a drug that makes the uterus hostile to the implantation of the embryo.[v] She seems to think that because women can use this drug and still become pregnant 2% of the time, it is not abortifacient. What about the other 98%? This is like saying that because some people survive airplane crashes, they are not the cause of fatalities.

She admits that "Ella is similar in composition to RU-486," the abortifacient drug, but denies that the two have similar effects. What is her evidence that similar drugs will have dissimilar effects? “Scientists argue that there is no evidence that Ella has this type of effect,” unless, of course, it is taken in sufficient quantities, for then “it could alter the lining of the uterus and theoretically impair an embryo's implantation.” So it is abortifacient, after all.

And didn't she just say that a fertilized egg is not an embryo prior to implantation? Logic is no obstacle to an ideological agenda---yet another one of those wonderful truisms.

Edward J. Furton, Ph.D. NCBC Director of Publications

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (the NCBC) consistently has voiced its strong opposition to the mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that all employers provide insurance coverage free of charge to their employees for contraceptives, surgical sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs and devices.  There was widespread outrage to this measure which was seen by many as an attempt to force religious organizations to violate their moral convictions and religious beliefs by providing drugs, procedures and devices that they considered to be immoral because they violated human dignity.  The opposition was so strong and from so many different quarters that President Obama proposed what he called a “compromise” on Friday, February 10.  The NCBC has been involved in providing analyses of the “compromise” to its various constituents and collaborating with others involved with trying to influence public policy.  As soon as the government documents were actually made available and studied, it became obvious that there was no true compromise at all but rather some slight modifications to procedure that left the substance of the mandate entirely intact.  In fact, the day the “compromise” was announced, the mandate was entered into the federal register with no changes.

Since the announcement of the “compromise” organizations of varied religious beliefs and political affiliation have called upon President Obama to withdraw the HHS mandate in its entirety.  

Some of the fundamental reasons the “Mandate” must continue to be opposed are:

• The unacceptable definition of what constitutes a religion for protection under the constitution.  HHS has determined that for an organization to qualify for a “religious” exemption it must hire and serve primarily its own co-religionists and try to convert those who do not share the same faith.  This unconscionably narrow definition of what constitutes a religion would not cover the Catholic Church in its own self understanding.  In other words, it would not even cover the largest religious body in the United States.  It is a matter of religious belief that Catholics are commanded to serve all in need not just its own co-religionists.  This goes to the heart of the teachings of the Church’s founder who told the pointed story of the man who had fallen among thieves and been left beaten by the roadside.  His co-religionists passed him by, but the one who did not share his faith, the Good Samaritan, is the one who stopped to help him and bind up his wounds.  Jesus told us to go and do likewise and that even as we have done a service to the least of our neighbors, we have done it to Him.  It is unjustifiable for the federal government, by bureaucratic fiat, to make the arbitrary judgment concerning what organization constitutes a religion.  This is one area where the mandate violates the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
  It is often pointed out that this narrow definition of religion is in place in a number of states already.  That is not accurate: there are only three states with such a narrow definition of religion, with some options for being exempt from state law, e.g., through self-insurance plans.  Such options are not available under the HHS mandate.  Furthermore, the Catholic Church fought these narrow definitions of religion in the states without success.  Why should it simply acquiesce when they are imposed by the federal government?

• The unacceptable definition of what constitutes a disease or pathology, in this case, fertility and pregnancy.  Contraceptives and surgically mutilating acts such as tubal ligations are included in the Mandate as means of preventing disease rather than being seen for what they are, drugs and surgical interventions that actually destroy or render dysfunctional an otherwise healthy system of the body.  Abortifacient drugs and devices are also offered as preventions for disease as though preventing an embryo from implanting in the nurturing womb of his or her mother were the prevention of a pathology.  Such errors of fact cannot go unchallenged, no matter who asserts them.

• The unacceptable and arbitrary shifting of an unjustifiable federal mandate from one group of citizens to another.  In an attempt to forge a compromise the Obama administration first of all created a new category of citizens – those who did not enjoy the HHS religious exemption because they were not really “religious”, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, but who still had religious objections.  According to the “compromise”, the proposal to be considered is that they would not have to provide insurance to cover the costs of the contraceptives, mutilations and abortifacient drugs and devices – but now the insurance companies themselves would have to provide them at their cost. Of course everyone understands that insurance companies would be certain to recover their costs through the premiums charged to the (non-exempt, but now indulged) organization that has religious and moral scruples about providing these drugs and devices.  Also, no provision was made for many religious organizations who are self-insured.  How are they to avoid the coercive measures accompanying the mandate, such as the heavy fines.

As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others have insisted, this mandate is a violation of the First Amendment and must be rescinded.  It is also unnecessary, harmful and in violation of human dignity. Those who have embraced the mandate have ignored the constitutional questions it raises in favor of secondary issues such as women’s access to contraception under the euphemistic and misguided term “women’s health”, or the perceived good of universal health care. The moral issues related to the latter two are significant and should be addressed. This issue, however, must not be allowed to be diluted by arguments about the morality of sterilization, abortifacient drugs and devices, and contraception. Every American should feel challenged by this egregious violation of constitutional freedom.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Christian Medical Association, The Southern Baptist Convention, some Jewish groups, the Catholic Medical Association, a group of highly regarded Catholic scholars, individual religious leaders, and many others have all decried the president’s mandate and the so-called “compromise” which leaves the mandate in place as a violation of the Constitution of the United States and potentially of the consciences of the citizens of the United States.  We are pleased to provide links to what we believe are some of the best commentaries on this wrong-headed policy of the Obama administration.

________________________________________________

One claim that has been directed toward Rick Santorum and his family on the campaign trail has been that there is a double-standard or even a hypocrisy regarding his position on abortion, because some have claimed that he would have had an abortion when his wife faced a difficult pregnancy back in 1996. Both the critics of Santorum, as well as Rick and his wife Karen, may not have fully appreciated some of the moral nuances involved in their case.

The details reported in the press included that his wife Karen was fighting an infection, which arose after she had undergone intrauterine surgery to try to correct a serious genetic defect in their unborn child. Following the appearance of the infection, antibiotics were given to target the pathology. The family discussed inducing labor, which would have involved using a drug called pitocin. This would have been done to clear out the source of the infection, surmised to be infected membranes, from her body. According to Rick, "Karen said, 'We're not inducing labor, that's an abortion. No way. That isn't going to happen. I don't care what happens.'"

What ended up happening was that she went into labor spontaneously, without being induced. When she realized it, she requested that an agent be given to block the labor so she could continue the pregnancy since the child was too young to survive outside the womb, but her physicians refused, citing malpractice concerns. Children born before 21-23 weeks are not considered viable, and their child was only in the 19^th or 20^th week of pregnancy.

Gabriel Michael Santorum was born shortly afterwards, and lived for about 2 hours.

Karen’s claim that inducing labor would be the moral equivalent of abortion is not quite correct. In circumstances where an intrauterine infection arises prior to viability, the decision to induce labor does not necessarily constitute an instance of a direct abortion, because in the absence of a suitable alternative or remedy for the infection, and with death looming for both mother and child, the physician who induces labor is seeking to clear and remove the source of the infection by acting pharmacologically on the mother's body, not the child's, through inducing the uterus to contract. One is not attacking the body of the child, as in a direct abortion (like a dilation and evacuation) where the child's body is dismembered with suction or surgical instruments. One is instead delivering the membranes, and thus, also the child, with the foreseen but unintended consequence that the child will probably die subsequently due to prematurity, and due to the other birth defects which were apparently present in the case of the Santorum's child. When no other alternatives are available, this represents a valid application of the principle of double effect, and would be morally permissible.

When interviewed about the matter, Rick Santorum was reported to have said: “The baby was going to die no matter what, and if she hadn’t already gone into labor, it would have been the equivalent of murder not to put her into labor. We did everything medically possible to save both.”

While it is clear the Santorums did indeed do everything they could to save both, Rick’s conclusion that not putting Karen into labor would be the “equivalent of murder” is not quite correct either. To choose not to put her into labor, when there would be benefit to her from doing so, could be a form of negligence, but it would not be murder if there were no evil intent.

The Santorums, clearly, were not involved in any form of a direct abortion. Unless one were to stipulate that the antibiotic was responsible for causing Karen’s labor to begin, which seems doubtful, then they were not involved in any indirect taking of life either, since the labor arose spontaneously as Karen's body reacted to the presence of the infection itself.

However, insofar as the induction of labor and the loss of the child’s life ended up resulting from the original corrective surgical intervention (and co-occurring infection), one could conclude that the Santorums were involved in the indirect and unintended loss of the life of their child because they chose to try the surgery. Because the defect of the child was extremely serious, nevertheless, there appeared to be a proportionate and justifiable reason for choosing that particular high-risk surgery in an attempt to benefit both child and mother.

_________________________________________________________

The Komen Foundation for the Cure has learned the hard way that you do not cross the pro-abortion lobby without suffering a swift reaction. After little more than 24 hours, Komen has reversed itself and will now provide Planned Parenthood with hundreds of thousands of dollars from its massive and well-publicized funding campaign.

The result of this double reversal will be to solidify the opinion of pro-life persons throughout the country that the Komen Foundation cannot be trusted with their donations.

We urge Catholics and all pro-life citizens to refuse to participate in Komen sponsored events.

In addition to the raw fact that Planned Parenthood exists to destroy the lives of unborn children, the organization is being investigated for various fraudulent practices, including the mixing of government money with the practice of abortion and the failure to report child abuse and statutory rape to legal authorities. Abortion is an ugly business. Komen has just reembraced that ugliness in a very public manner.

The irony is that there is considerable evidence that abortion has a direct connection to breast cancer. The publications of The National Catholic Bioethics Center have examined this evidence in some detail. The Komen Foundation contradicts its mission to cure breast cancer when it funds the nation’s largest and wealthiest abortion provider.

There are plenty of other charities out there that will welcome the donations of faithful Catholics.

__________________________________________________

The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure (against breast cancer) has decided to no longer fund Planned Parenthood, which last year received nearly a quarter of a million dollars from the charitable organization.  The funds were ostensibly being used for breast examinations but reports were that the breast exams in Planned Parenthood Centers had actually been declining and that they were being conducted without proper equipment, but by a simple physical examination, which is not a very reliable method.Such support to the largest abortion provider in the country also ignored the significant evidence that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.

This is welcome news. Many Catholic organizations have wanted to support Komen's important work fighting breast cancer, but that charitable effort was hampered by its open association with the largest abortion provider in the United States. Some local chapters of Komen refused to provide funds to Planned Parenthood, but the organization's national directors seemed committed to providing the funding to an organization with such ananti-life agenda  until the recent exciting announcement. The reason for the break is apparently that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by a legislative committee of the U.S. Congress for various fraudulent practices, some of which had been exposed by pro-life activists. Great pressure had also been placed directly on Komen by the pro-life community.

Now that that effort has been successful, Catholics and all who support the pro-life cause can freely renew their support for the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure. This step in the right direction should be immediately rewarded by increased pro-life support for the walks and runs that are the centerpiece of its fundraising efforts.

Given this change, the reservations that The National Bioethics Center has repeatedly raised over the years concerning the Komen foundation no longer stand.

We can expect the Komen foundation to come under intense pressure from those who favor abortion in an effort to persuade them to relent on their decision and to once again provide funding for an organization radically committed to the killing of the unborn. We hope and pray that the directors of Komen will have the strength to remain steadfast in their decision.

___________________________________________________

January 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reaffirmed that virtually all private health care plans must cover sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception. Non-profit religious employers are not exempt under the rule’s extremely narrow definition of a religious employer, and are given one year to comply.  The Catholic bishops of the United States called this mandate "literally unconscionable." Responding to the announcement, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.” The Obama administration “has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand.” Cardinal-designate Dolan urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.  At issue is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom, which ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans. [www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm.]

The NCBC provided detailed, and factually based testimony on the hazards of such a mandate, both to the health and dignity of women, and to the very basic rights of freedom and  liberty enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Specifically:

Treating pregnancy as a disease that should be prevented is medically, socially, and anthropologically inaccurate and sexually biased. By treating pregnancy as a disease to be prevented one can only conclude that the treatment for such a “disease” is an abortion. Thus, the Rule is acting against the very provision in the PPACA and its legislative history, that state that abortion is not one of the “preventive services” to be included in the “services” provided. Yet the Rule clearly mandates coverage at no cost for contraceptives and sterilizations to prevent the “disease” of pregnancy, genetic screening of existing pregnancies whose ”treatment” will for some include abortion, and abortifacients which cause the termination of the newly conceived human being. These and other contraceptives are presented inaccurately as a deterrent to unplanned pregnancies, when the very data presented by the Institute of Medicine to support such claims belie these claims. Empowering women to know and act with their bodies to manage their fertility in a responsible manner is the real answer to the physiological, social, and psychological problems created by a culture encouraging women to engage in unhealthy life styles. Then, forcing others to participate in and to pay for the life style choices of others, which clearly and demonstrably have been detrimental, is the utmost violation of the United States Constitution. The legislative intent never was to mandate that all insurance plans be required to provide, with no co-pay, contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations. This Rule not only is creating new law, but violating the Constitutional protections of religious freedom in the process. At a minimum, a robust protection of religious freedom is needed, to protect the very foundation upon which this country was based; and of great importance to the wellbeing of this county is the recognition that the existing Rule is merely going to replicate and maximize the failed initiatives to address the problem of unplanned pregnancies and sexual irresponsibility. [For the complete testimony with data to support these facts see: NCBC Provides Testimony to Health and Human Services on Coverage of "Preventive Services" (see  http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=482&ncs1277=0.)

The NCBC joins its voice with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in urging that the HHS mandate be overturned. A first step is to continue to urge Members of Congress to co-sponsor the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467). This measure will ensure that those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” Please see: nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292.

The freedom of all Americans has been violated when through the executive branch of government the constitutionally protect right of conscience can be overturned by the very government, which from its very inception, was formed and charged with protecting this sacred right.

__________________________________________________

By John M. Haas, Ph.D., S.T.L. NCBC President

January 25, 2012. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has granted a “nihil obstat”, stating effectively that there are no moral obstacles to the restructuring of Catholic Healthcare West into the secular Dignity Health.  Mr. George Wesolek, a spokesman for the Archdiocese, wrote in an email to the California Catholic Daily, “I would like to point out that the Archbishop gave a ‘Nihil Obstat’ after consulting widely with other Bishops and moral theologians (one of them was Dr. John Haas) before making this decision.”  The California Catholic Daily then went on to identify me as the President of The National Catholic Bioethics Center and a member of the Governing Board of the Pontifical Academy for Life, to which I was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010.

It should be noted that the official press release of the Archdiocese made no mention of The National Catholic Bioethics Center or me as having been consulted by the Archbishop.  That is as it should be.  The Center is called on daily to provide counsel from the moral tradition of the Church on matters related to medicine and the life sciences as well as collaborative arrangements between Catholic and non-Catholic institutions.  The Center does its work in complete confidentiality; otherwise few would seek its counsel.  It is a research and educational institute that provides advice and counsel through its moral analyses of proposals and actions in light of Catholic moral teaching. It has no executive power to make and enact decisions; that belongs to those who seek its counsel, such as bishops or health care administrators.  Those who receive our advice are obviously free to follow it or reject it.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center was indeed consulted with respect to the proposal that Catholic Healthcare West undergo a restructuring, as Mr. Wesolek has stated.  However, that fact should not lead anyone to infer what the judgment of the Center may have been with respect to the proposal.  The only one who has the authority to render such a judgment and can indeed assume responsibility for having done so is the Archbishop of San Francisco.

___________________________________________

On February 11, World Day of the Sick, Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, will be in Philadelphia and will speak at a one-day conference titled “Stand Up and Go: Your Faith Has Saved You”. The conference theme is taken from  Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter for the 20^th World Day of the Sick and will address Catholic identity in health care as well as pastoral and sacramental issues.

The conference will be held at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary and is an excellent opportunity for those in Catholic health care to meet the archbishop. The conference will begin at 11:00 AM with an opening address by Archbishop Zimowski. Lunch will be provided for $5.00, and the conference will conclude with Mass celebrated by the archbishop in the Immaculate Conception Chapel at the seminary at 3:30. Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Philadelphia, will be the homilist.

A full schedule of the event can be downloaded here. An invitation letter from Archbishop Chaput may be viewed here.

To register, please call Ms. Connie Scharff at 215-587-0504 or email cscharff@adphila.

______________________________________________

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) enthusiastically welcomes the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the First Amendment and protect religious liberty.

On January 11, 2012, the Court upheld the right of churches to determine the qualifications of their own ministers, or the 'Ministerial Exception.'   The case involved a claim of wrongful termination filed against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.  In the decision, the Court recognized that the ministerial exception applies beyond the head of a religious congregation to others, such as a teacher in this case, who are viewed as ministers or those carrying the message of the Church.

The NCBC echoes the words of Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty:

The Supreme Court decision marks a victory for religious liberty and the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of Religion is America's First Freedom and the Court has spoken unanimously in favor of it. The Founding Fathers would be proud. Respect for the long-standing "ministerial exception," which is grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, prevents the government from interfering in the employment relationship between a Church and its ministers. This decision makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance of keeping internal church affairs off limits to the government—because whoever chooses the minister chooses the message. It's a great day for the First Amendment.[1]

Indeed, this decision is welcomed, especially in the face of the escalating attacks on religious liberty, even by the very government charged with protecting the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.