“Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own country; and, where there are just reasons for it, the right to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there” (Pacem in Terris, 25).

Persons emigrate from one country to another for a variety of reasons. It may be for reasons of stark persecution, the desire to escape poverty, or to seek greater opportunity. The Church views emigration as a right that should be recognized by every nation. That right is rooted in the belief that each person should have access to the basic goods that constitute the universal common good.

The willingness of one country to accept persons across the borders and offer them a home is emblematic of the unity of the human family and an act of human solidarity. Some political leaders have spared no effort to restrict—and, in some cases, end—legal immigration to the United States. They argue that new immigrants do not assimilate to the American way of life and pose a threat to the jobs of U.S. citizens.

Some immigrants may just need time to adjust to America mores and  culture. In fact, a period of living in ethnic communities may be what immigrants need to be prepared for mainstream society. Given the core of Catholic social teaching, any political candidate who impedes this process or betrays a hostile attitude toward immigrants should be found wanting.

The prosperity of the United States, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, places a special obligation on its citizens and elected representatives: “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin” (CCC 2241).

The Church also recognizes that a country has the right to control its borders while monitoring and setting reasonable limits on immigration. The United States may also protect its cultural patrimony, which some immigrants to America may initially not share. But Catholics should avoid the kind of nationalist and “nativist” rhetoric that was once used to discourage Catholics from arriving on the shores of our nation. Finally, the threat of possible terrorist infiltration is legitimate but should not overshadow the basic Catholic obligation of “Welcoming the Stranger Among Us.”

Summary

1. The Church affirms the basic human right of human persons to emigrate from one nation to another for “just reasons,” such as economic well being.
2. At the same time, every state has the duty to protect its borders, regulate the flow of immigrants, and document their presence.
3. The prudential challenge for our nation is simultaneously recognizing the right to emigrate for “just reasons” while protecting the common good by the reasonable control of our borders.
4. Catholics should remember when the economic conditions of European countries, like Ireland and Italy, sent thousands of emigrants to the United States to seek a better life.

“Man, who discovers his capacity to transform and in a certain sense create the world through his own work, forgets that this is always based on God’s prior and original gift of the things that are. Man thinks that he can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to his will, as though it did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which man can indeed develop but must not betray” (Centesimus Annus, 37).

Man’s relationship with the environment is subject to various principles of Catholic social teaching, such as solidarity and prudence, and the preferential option for the poor. The Church does not think environmental issues can be resolved through economic or scientific means alone—the underlying moral and cultural causes must be addressed if changes are to become permanent.

At creation, the Church teaches, men and women were made the stewards of this world. Despite this authority, we do not have an unfettered rule over the environment. Our control is subject to the same moral restrictions that are imposed on governing our bodies: Just as governments serve to protect the common good, so too must we recognize our solidarity with the natural world and its resources.

Prudence requires that nations and their leaders apply intelligence when making decisions that affect the environment. Unfortunately, some are more concerned with meeting their economic and consumer goals than in responsibly carrying out their stewardship roles in protecting natural resources. As a result, the common good has been threatened from an array of environmental issues including pollution and nuclear waste.

Arguably, the more significant factor in environmental crises has been the rise of consumerism and over-consumption: “In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which these cause. Simplicity, moderation and discipline, as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless habits of a few” (John Paul II, The Ecological Crisis).

Rather than addressing issues of protecting natural resources or curbing consumerism, the affluent nations tend to focus more on reducing third-world birth rates. Protecting the environment has become another excuse for funding abortion around the world.

Foreign aid packages that are sent to Africa from USAID and other federally funded relief organizations often contain materials directed toward population control, such as contraception, abortion, and voluntary sterilization. Even if, tragically, these initiatives were successful, the impact on the environment would not be nearly as significant as reduced consumption.

The sheer number of people is not the problem. Some of the most densely populated areas of the world are both affluent and ecologically secure.

To be fair, the leaders of the developed world have taken steps to curb their excessive consumerism. But men and women, the natural stewards of all creation, must continue to focus their creativity on more responsible development: “Even as humanity’s mistakes are at the root of earth’s travail today, human talents and invention can and must assist in its rebirth and contribute to human development” (USCCB, Renewing the Earth).

Summary

1. The Church teaches that human persons are the “stewards” of the natural world and its resources.
2. We should look upon the natural world as a gift, and treat it as such, just as we do our own lives and existence.
3. The destruction of the environment and the overuse of natural resources is the product of unfettered production and consumption.
4. Responsible stewardship of the environment is no justification for contraception, abortion, or sterilization.

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that . . . no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2).

As created by God, human beings have an intrinsic dignity. The natural desire to hold religious beliefs and to practice forms of religious worship are expressions of that dignity and must be considered a fundamental human right.

Since religious beliefs around the world are not uniform, the right to religious belief and practice posits a corresponding duty of respect for religious liberty.  This duty of respect requires tolerance for different religious viewpoints and an appreciation for religious pluralism.

The state must guard the religious liberty of all faith traditions, both in law and public policy.  This protection is spelled out in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s essential to note that this amendment in no way prohibits the freedom of religious expression, but it forbids the United States from designating one faith tradition as an official religion.

Protection of the common good, however, can take precedence over an individual’s right to religious expression. Therefore, religious liberty does not protect those who promote violent demonstrations of faith or call people to commit violent acts.

The impact of the First Amendment, properly understood, protects freedom of religious expression and protects people of faith against those who would impose their secular beliefs on others.  But, sadly, this has not been the case. During the past 35 years, government authorities have implicitly established secularism as an official state religion.

Secularism has taken many forms: the removal of voluntary religious instruction in public schools; the banning of voluntary private prayer in public schools; employment discrimination against those who openly practice their faith; the promotion of an atheist “ethos”; and mandatory contraceptive coverage in health plans. “It is therefore difficult . . . to accept a position that gives only atheism the right of citizenship in public and social life, while believers are, as though by principle, barely tolerated or are treated as second-class citizens” (Redemptor Hominis, 17).

The greatest threat to religious liberty at present is the adoption of same-sex marriage laws in six states, the latest being New York. Although same-sex marriage legislation contains exemptions for church institutions from civil suits for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, there is no guarantee how these exemptions will survive judicial review.  Church institutions can also be punished by loss of government contracts for social services. San Francisco revoked $3.5 million in social services contracts from the Salvation Army when it refused, for religious reasons, to provide benefits to its employees’ same-sex partners.

The issue that most people have long identified with religious liberty—the display of religious symbols—is the easiest to resolve. Allowing the display of religious symbols does not constitute the “establishment” of a state religion but rather the history of our nation. The founding of America was rooted in Judeo-Christian teachings incorporated into our legal system and the document of our democratic charter.

The importance of religion to the development of our nation can be seen in the development of our education and health care systems. For the first 125 years of the American experience, our citizens and our government relied upon the money and work invested by faith-based organizations in education and health care. But in recent years, government funds for both education and health care have made secular demands on the religious institutions.  This is discriminatory and a clear violation of religious liberty.

Secular and faith-based organizations should play on a level playing field in competing for government funds. Faith-based organizations that accept government funding must not be forced to sacrifice their religious liberties. For example, a Catholic hospital that receives a government grant should not be required to provide contraception and abortion services.

Summary

1. The desire for religious belief and practice is natural to the human person who is created in the “image and likeness” of God.
2. Religious liberty, therefore, is a fundamental human right rooted in the dignity of the human person and must be protected by law and public policy.
3. The First Amendment protects religious expression and also protects people of faith from the enforced secularism of public institutions.
4. Public display of religious symbols from the Judeo-Christian tradition do not establish a religion but rather express the historical development of our nation and its culture.

“…those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere” (Libertatis Conscientia, 68).

At a recent meeting of religious conservatives, a Catholic activist approached several Catholic politicians holding a Bible open to Matthew 25 containing Gospel admonitions to help the poor.  The activist attempted to equate the obligatory nature of Church teaching on life and marriage with the issue of proposed cuts to the federal budget.  This is the predictable strategy of left-wing Catholics to distract attention away from Catholic politicians who support abortion and gay marriage.

The “preferential option for the poor” challenges Catholics to make a special effort to help those in poverty. How this is translated into public policy is a matter for prudential judgment. Budgets are a compendium of these judgments by assigning tax revenue to programs to assist those in poverty.

It’s clear from other aspects of the Church’s social teaching that Catholics must be careful not to undermine any person’s right to self-determination and autonomy as has been witnessed in some forms of welfare assistance.

Social Justice

The principle of social justice combines the notion that persons are responsible for exercising their freedom to obtain the goods of life and that these goods are proportionate to their inherent dignity. But there are some who cannot obtain these goods without assistance. One of the most contentious issues in modern politics is the question of what and how much should be provided by the community or the state.

Catholic social teaching does not justify the growth of a federal welfare state. A wealthy state that provides for the less fortunate is to be preferred to the socialist state where everyone is equally poor. The goal of Catholic social teaching is to provide the conditions for persons to obtain the goods appropriate to the dignity of their existence.

Welfare Policy

One area in which the government can most appropriately weed out the roots of poverty is through a sound fiscal policy. At a minimum, the Church advocates regulated income levels and working conditions that promote self-respect and self-sufficiency: “The amount a worker receives must be sufficient, in proportion to available funds, to allow him and his family a standard of living consistent with human dignity” (Pacem in Terris, 20).

The federal government should also enact legislation that motivates the unemployed to move from the welfare lines to the workforce. We should not embrace policies that encourage the unemployed to become dependent on the government, thereby losing their incentive to become self-sufficient.

Homelessness

Those who are poor face the agonizing battle of spreading their meager income among the basic necessities, housing being the most expensive of all. Many who are poor literally have no home to call their own. They become dependent on the generosity of friends, relatives, charities, government programs, and the Catholic Church, which is the non-governmental leader in providing housing and shelter to the poor.

This assistance is certainly necessary in the short-term. But the more lasting solution is one that empowers people to provide their own security and stability. Unfortunately, a whole class of workers is unable to do this because they lack the necessary education and training.

Education

The poor cannot advance in this technological age if they don’t acquire education. Unfortunately, public schools in low-income areas operate at lower standards than those in more affluent neighborhoods. Social justice requires that this inequality be overcome, whether through school vouchers, state-sponsored tutors, or other forms of training.

Social programs are not the only solution. More immediate and permanent solutions can be found by applying the principle of subsidiarity. Individuals and communities must meet the challenge and help those who want to work acquire the knowledge and skills needed to secure higher paying jobs.

The Family

First, however, there is a demoralizing condition within the country that must be overcome. The decline of the traditional two-parent family is the primary cause of poverty. As more people have delayed marriage and the trend of unmarried cohabitation has increased, the number of children born out of wedlock has grown. The rise of divorce has also contributed to the growth of single-parent households.

The Church has always stressed the importance of traditional family structures in protecting the welfare of children. However, this is not a situation that can be resolved with government intervention. Society itself, in the purest sense of solidarity and subsidiarity, must decide what type of culture it wants to promote and act accordingly.

Summary:

1. The preferential option for the poor requires that authorities first provide assistance to the poor and oppressed.
2. The poor must have access to the education and job training necessary to compete in today’s job market.
3. Strong families that remain intact keep their members from falling into poverty.

By Deal Hudson, president of Catholic Advocate

“Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good. Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance” (CCC 2288).

The issue of health care dominated the debate during the 2010 election. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), passed by Congress and signed by President Obama, attempts to provide universal care for American citizens long supported by the bishops.

Some people falsely assume that for health care to be universal it must be managed by the federal government. In fact, the bishops have never stipulated how universal health care – reasonable access for everyone to adequate health care – should be achieved. It could have been achieved by a combination of personal and corporate insurance coverage, supplemented by philanthropic and governmental programs.

But, the bishops did not support this legislation because it contains federal funding for abortion. In spite of this historic expansion of the abortion mandate, the majority of Catholic members of Congress voted for this legislation, many of them denying the very presence of the abortion funding their bishops publicly condemned.

Other Catholic leaders, including the Catholic Medical Association, questioned the impact of putting the nation’s health care under the supervision of the federal government. Their argument raised the principle of subsidiarity in connection with the loss of individual choice and the impact on the doctor-patient relationship.

The Protect Life Act has been introduced to strip the abortion mandate from the legislation and faces an initial vote in the House. This legislation has been strongly endorsed by the Catholic bishops and Catholic Advocate.

As Catholics, we are called to respect the dignity of people by helping “in the attainment of living conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity” (CCC 2288). Throughout this country’s history, Catholic hospitals—622 as of 2002—have steadfastly fulfilled this moral obligation to care for the sick. But faith-based medical services, along with publicly funded hospitals and clinics, are strained to take care of the uninsured.

Insured patients have been financially strained to meet the rising costs of health care. Most rely on their employee benefit plans, which are less expensive than private insurance policies. However, the costs are still high, and some companies are scaling back their benefit programs. Other companies and professions do not offer any benefits at all.

Another health-care issue that has surfaced in the PPACA is that of conscience protections. Following the passage of Roe v. Wade, Congress protected the rights of health organizations and providers to refuse to perform abortions under the conscientious objection principle. Today, this question is returning with a vengeance. Under President Obama, all conscience protections for health care personnel have been removed from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In response, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, was introduced by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R, NE-01) on March 17, 2011. It amends PPACA “to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan or the purchaser or beneficiary (in the case of individual coverage) without penalty.”

It also applies similar guidance to the state health insurance exchange programs and becomes retroactive to when PPACA was signed into law by President Obama as if the language was included.

In recent years, “reproductive rights” advocates have pushed for expanded health-care coverage that would force all employee health plans to include contraception and “emergency contraception.” The Catholic health-care ministry is based on the protection of life and preservation of the dignity of people. Procedures that are contrary to this mission (abortion, euthanasia, and contraception) cannot be provided by Catholic hospitals or supported by Catholic health-care plans.

As a result, many Catholic hospitals have lost their Catholic identity, gradually caving into the pressure to offer abortions, and some have been sold to secular medical conglomerates.

Summary:

1. Catholics should not be required to pay taxes that subsidize abortion coverage in a universal health care program.
2. The good of achieving universal coverage does not outweigh the presence of abortion funding in Affordable Care Act.
3. Health care needs should be met by a combination of personal and corporate insurance, philanthropy, and government programs.
4. Catholic health care organizations must be free to perform their work with clear consciences.

By Deal Hudson, President of Catholic Advocate

The approximately 13 million African Americans aborted since Roe v. Wade could not be reached for comment when the Archdiocese’s “Racial Justice Lifetime Achievement” award was bestowed upon Fr. Pfleger last year.

Father Ffleger has now been suspended by Cardinal George, and Obama has earned the reputation as the most pro-abortion president in history.

Though the claim that Obama is just “pro-choice” was never defensible, even Sister Baird will never use it again after Obama’s staff promised that he would veto H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”

The historic bill, already passed in the House, seeks to close accounting and other loopholes in existing laws, allowing the tax dollars of American citizens, including all Catholics, from going to abortion providers.

As president, Obama has never missed a single opportunity in hiring, funding, or in any other way to promote unlimited, free access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. This should come as no surprise since, as an Illinois State senator, he opposed legislation that would make it a crime to deny care to babies who survived abortion.

Every judicial and cabinet appointment relevant to the abortion issue has been unmistakably pro-abortion. Every foreign policy spending bill includes money, now liberated by Obama’s immediate reversal of the Mexico City Policy, for international performers of and promoters of abortion. Every time he has had any opportunity to expand access to and funding for abortion, Obama has done exactly that.

Serious people have stopped pretending Obama is pro-choice and wants to limit the number of abortions. As the 2012 election begins, Catholics who still consider the pro-abortion president to be a champion of “social justice” should be challenged to explain their defense of the president. Those of us who want to believe the best of these Catholics’ intentions deserve clear answers as to how anyone can still defend his record on life and justice issues, which as the Church understands it, are inextricably linked.

It’s clear from the 2010 election results that many faithful Catholics who voted for Obama have changed their minds. The number of Catholic Democrats who lost their House seats for supporting taxpayer funding for abortion in the health care bill tells the tale.

Obama even disbanded the President’s Council on Bioethics, which, despite the perceptions of many, was actually composed under President Bush of members of both camps and actually debated issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other controversial topics. After promising to rebuild the council, Obama simply redefined its mission as being more about “policy” than debate, then in late 2009 appointed two token members whom we’ve not heard from since.

This, perhaps more than any other move by President Obama, tells us what he actually thinks of intellectual debate and his openness to dialogue. When he took charge, the debate ended. Everyone was evidently expected to support his policies, which, we were all told, were about “the common good.” Serving the common good makes absolutely no sense, of course, if you don’t begin by protecting innocent life.

Why aren’t liberals offended by Obama’s constant declaration of the end of debate on every contentious issue? Isn’t it the Left, especially the Catholic Left, who is always talking about “dialogue?”

Obama may not want to explain his position, but those Catholics who publicly tout Obama’s fitness to be president should be required to explain their support for his pro-abortion policies. The “abortion reduction” defense based upon the “war on poverty” will not wash in 2012. Put aside the fact that poverty has not been reduced, the fact is that Obama has directly espoused abortion as a “human right.”

There is nothing uncharitable about making this demand. The president can surround himself with all the Catholic surrogates he can recruit, but that doesn’t change the facts about when life begins, and it doesn’t end debate on how we should treat the most defenseless of our brothers and sisters.

By Stephen Phelan, Director of Communications, Human Life International

Speaker John Boehner, also a Catholic, was on the receiving end of a letter signed by over 70 Catholic academics claiming he, too, was abandoning the poor and destroying the “safety net” of programs mandated by Catholic social teaching. The total lack of regard by these same academics for the settled issues of abortion and marriage has been noted.

But, Congressman Ryan did something that most Catholic members of Congress before him have not done. He took seriously the public debate among Catholics and wrote a letter, dated April 26, to the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York. His letter conveys his respect for the social Magisterium of the Catholic Church and how it can “contribute to the ongoing healthy dialogue about the nation’s budget and the economic foundations that make possible the exceptional generosity of Americans of every faith.”

Ryan’s letter puts his budget recommendations in the context of the world’s economy, underscoring the consequences of ignoring the economic downturn and the growing deficit. The nations of Europe, Ryan explains, by ignoring the problem too long, were forced to make “drastic cuts in benefits to the retired, the sick, the poor, and millions of public employees. Unsurprisingly, this austerity has generated widespread protests, riots, and violence. The social concerns of the Church cannot be addressed under these conditions.”

Ryan warns that the “U.S. has been traveling on a similar path for years,” and that if our nation continues to ignore the need for fiscal responsibility “the weakest will be hit three times over: by rising costs, by drastic cuts to programs they rely on, and by the collapse of individual support for charities that help the hungry, the homeless, the sick, refugees, and others in need.”

On May 18, Archbishop Dolan responded with a letter to Congressman Ryan that begins by stating his appreciation for Ryan’s “continued attention to the guidance of Catholic social justice in the current delicate budget considerations in Congress.” The Archbishop notes his agreement with religious leaders who claim “budgets are moral statements.”

But, where some religious leaders focus entirely on concern for the poor, Archbishop Dolan makes a broader statement:

“Thus I commend your letter’s attention to the important values of fiscal responsibility; sensitivity to the foundational role of the family; the primacy of the dignity of the human person and the protection of all human life; a concrete solicitude for the poor and the vulnerable, especially those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty; and putting into practice the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, here at home and internationally within the context of a commitment to the common good shared by government and other mediating institutions alike.”

Dolan’s inclusion of fiscal responsibility is clear recognition of Congressman Ryan’s basic point that without a sound economy the safety net of programs for the poor, both governmental and private, are put at risk. The Archbishop also points out the importance of human life, a point completely ignored by the Catholic academics who wrote Boehner, and which led all the bishops to urge Catholics in Congress not to pass the health care legislation, now the law of the land.

It’s also significant that Archbishop Dolan writes that Ryan, “rightly pointed out Pope John Paul’s comments on the limits of what he termed the ‘Social Assistance State.’” Dolan explains this by stressing the interrelation of subsidiarity to solidarity, quoting the Blessed John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus (48):

“… the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus, 48).”

Archbishop Dolan concludes by telling Congressman Ryan that he, along with Bishops Blaire and Hubbard, who wrote a public letter on budget issues, “would be pleased to make ourselves available.” We at Catholic Advocate hope that Congressman Ryan accepts this invitation, because both the Church and our nation will be the beneficiary of a continued discussion of these foundational issues.

A copy of Chairman Ryan’s letter is available here.

A copy of Archbishop Dolan’s letter is available here.

Upon receipt of Archbishop Dolan’s letter, Chairman Ryan issued the following statement:

“I thank Archbishop Dolan for his leadership and guidance on how policymakers can best serve the common good of our nation. The perilous fiscal and economic challenges facing our country require solutions that reflect our shared values and are rooted in timeless principles. The House-passed budget – The Path to Prosperity – seeks to strengthen the economic security of seniors, workers, and families, and averts the debt-fueled economic crisis before us. Our budget upholds the dignity of the human person and is especially attentive to the long-term concerns of the poor. I hope Americans of every faith and political background will continue in constructive dialogue to address these great challenges in their economic and moral dimensions. I am deeply grateful to Archbishop Dolan for his inspired engagement in this dialogue.”

Speaker John Boehner (R, OH-08) followed with this statement:

“I welcome Archbishop Dolan’s letter and am encouraged by the dialogue taking place between House Republicans and the Catholic Bishops regarding our budget, the Path to Prosperity. Our nation’s current fiscal path is a threat to human dignity in America, offering empty promises to the most vulnerable among us and condemning our children to a future limited by debt. We have a moral obligation as a nation to change course and adopt policies that reflect the truth about our nation’s fiscal condition and our obligation to future generations, and to offer hope for a better future. Our duty to serve others compels us to strive for nothing less. As Chairman Ryan notes in his letter to the Archbishop, Americans are blessed to have the teachings of the Church available to us as guidance as we confront our challenges together as a nation.”

By Deal Hudson and Matt Smith of Catholic Advocate

The academics describe the budget cuts to WIC and Maternal and Child health grants in the proposed House budget as “particularly cruel.” But the proposal is to trim those budgets — not to eliminate or “gut” them. Moreover, those programs may presently provide aid to some who are not truly in need, or in some cases overlap with other assistance programs.

The academics describe the proposed structural change to Medicare as “effectively end[ing] it.” But the House’s budget proposal on Medicare is designed, not to end it, but to restructure it in order to save it. One might disagree with the House budget’s approach regarding the means by which to provide safety nets for the poor or elderly, but to move from that disagreement to an accusation that the Speaker opposes helping the vulnerable is sheer demagoguery.

Since the charge of these academics is so serious, let us see what argument they should have made to support it. They should have started with the following two propositions which are true for all Catholics:

1. As a political community we have a special duty to help those unable to help themselves, i.e., the disabled, poor, and vulnerable.

2. People in groups affected by the programs whose budgets are proposed to be decreased, or are proposed to be re-structured, are in need, unable to help themselves, or unable to help themselves sufficiently.

But, then the academics should have provided the evidence to support the following two claims, which they did not. In fact, they begged these questions entirely.

1. Continuing to fund those programs at least at the present level, and in their present structure, is consistent with other equally serious moral responsibilities that we have as a political community, including our special responsibilities to the disabled, poor, and vulnerable.

2. The best way for us as a political community to help these groups is by continuing to fund those programs at least at the present level and in their present structure.

Since they provided no evidence, these academics, in justice, should withdraw their accusations and formally apologize to Speaker Boehner.

Further, the implication of moral equivalence between Notre Dame’s honoring a pro-abortion president and CUA’s honoring Speaker Boehner is confusing and harmful. The whole point of budget proposals these days is to head off an economic disaster that would especially injure the poor, disabled, and vulnerable among us.

It is unconscionable to place on the same moral plane such proposals of budgetary and administrative changes, on the one hand, with policies aimed at denying protection of the law to a whole class of vulnerable human beings — unborn human beings — and other policies aimed even at funding the killing of them, on the other hand.

The first issue concerns the question of what programs will best help the poor and vulnerable. The second issue concerns the central principle of our civilization—one taught in the Gospel and re-affirmed with clarity and full authority by the Catholic Church. This principle is that all human beings possess an equal fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill other innocent human beings for their own purposes.

For a Catholic institution, such as Notre Dame, to honor someone who is on the wrong side on the latter issue is to betray the core of what this institution should stand for. To defame Speaker of the House John Boehner for allegedly opposing Church teaching on the former issue, based on a fatuous argument, is a calumny.

By Patrick Lee, McAleer Professor of Bioethics and Director, Institute of Bioethics Franciscan University of Steubenville

The 36-page statement on political responsibility was hotly debated at the bishops’ meeting in 2007, though only four bishops voted against it. At the time, Archbishop Raymond Burke made an impassioned plea for his fellow bishops to reconsider problematic sections of “Faithful Citizenship” to no avail. Now, it is known that Cardinal Raymond Burke’s concerns were well founded. During the election, various sentences of the bishops’ statement were cherry-picked, stripped of context, and employed to convince Catholic voters it was justifiable to vote for pro-abortion candidates.

The bishops evidently did not anticipate how such a lengthy document would be manipulated and abused.

“Faithful Citizenship” was used by groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, as well as Obama supporters like Professors Doug Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, in their outreach to Catholic voters.

After the 2008 election, Archbishop Charles Chaput said in an interview “a new approach to conscience formation” was needed, adding, “‘Faithful Citizenship’ didn’t and doesn’t work because it’s been applied by different people in very different ways.”

Thus, when both Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi used appearances on “Meet the Press” to misrepresent Church teaching on abortion, dozens of individual bishops went on the record with their own statements. That they could not unite behind “Faithful Citizenship” was a telling indictment of its inadequacies.

A week prior to the 2008 election I asked aloud if “‘Faithful Citizenship’ Will Win the Catholic Vote for Obama?” The New York Times was reporting Obama — with his extreme pro-abortion position and support for gay marriage — 22 points ahead among Catholic voters.

“Faithful Citizenship,” I argued, had “provided Obama’s Catholic supporters the escape clauses needed to convince Catholics they could vote for a pro-abortion candidate in ‘good conscience.’”

The two major loopholes in the document can be found in sections 34-35. First, it states that Catholics are allowed to vote for a supporter of abortion rights so long as 1) they do not intend to support that position (#34) or 2) there are offsetting “morally grave reasons” (#35).

The two major loopholes in the bishops’ document must be corrected in the next version of “Faithful Citizenship.”

A number of bishops have pointed out the problems with the document; Bishop Robert Vasa (Baker, OR), Bishop Kevin Vann (Ft, Worth, TX), and Bishop Kevin Farrell (Dallas, TX) among them. The pastoral letter issued by Bishops Vann and Farrell pinpointed the way “Faithful Citizenship” could be twisted into a proportionalist argument for supporting abortion. They reiterated Church teaching that there are no “‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.”

Obama’s Catholic surrogates ignored bishops like Vasa, Farrell, and Vann. How “Faithful Citizenship” was abused during the 2008 campaign is illustrated by this quote from the Web site of “Roman Catholics for Obama”:

“We hope you’ll spend time reviewing all of the material housed or linked from here. But if you read just two documents, please make them the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship — which explains why “[t]here may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other grave reasons” — and Barack Obama’s Blueprint for Change, which outlines all of Senator Obama’s positions and is, we think, reflective of why he is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook [emphasis added].”

This message was not confined to the Internet – it echoed through the nation’s parishes when “Faithful Citizenship” discussions were held and led by Obama sympathizers: Catholic voters can ignore Obama’s pro-abortion record because of mitigating factors.

USCCB staff were aware that “Faithful Citizenship” could be read this way. At a conference at Creighton University in June 2008, John Carr, executive director of social development and world peace for the USCCB, “stressed that the bishops’ document does not shut the door on any candidate, not even one who supports abortion rights.”

“[Carr] pointed to a caveat in the document: “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” [emphasis added].

Why would the bishops approve language like this? Were they unaware of how it would be twisted and spun during the campaign? Surely some of them realized the document was so abstract it was an open invitation to the supporters of pro-abortion politicians to invoke Catholic social teaching.

When the bishops meet in November 2011, they must republish “Faithful Citizenship” and eliminate its present ambiguities. Otherwise the abuse will continue. If not, they risk more situations like that of then, Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, who was forced to say, “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.”

By Deal Hudson, President of Catholic Advocate

Barna’s polling of mainline Protestant, non-mainline Protestant (Evangelical), and Catholics is marked by an additional category called “Born again Christians.” These are defined not as people who describe themselves as “born again,” but as those “who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today, and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.”

“Born agains” are not the same to Barna as Evangelicals who are the 7% of the population “most concerned about moral issues (among other considerations) and are most involved in religious activity.” Barna describes the “born again,” a larger and less conservative group than Evangelicals, as “a pivotal group in the last three elections.”

Presumably, this category is Barna’s awkward attempt to parse out those Christians who, in spite of being Catholic or belonging to a mainline Protestant denomination, still believe in Jesus Christ, eternal life, and personal salvation.

Fair enough, but it’s doubtful Barna has successfully grasped the inner dynamics of the Catholic vote by adding evangelically-worded questions to its polling instrument. If Barna is interested in tagging those Christian respondents, including Catholics, who are religiously active and morally earnest in the manner of Evangelicals, then they need to change their approach.

Indeed, for a group as obviously sophisticated as Barna there is something almost willfully ignorant about their approach to polling Catholics. For example, the entire history of Catholic polling has demonstrated the crucial distinction in predicting their voting behavior with the regularity of Mass attendance. Since 1965, these polls show the higher the level of religious activism the more likely a Catholic will vote with the Republican Party.

If Barna researchers want to know which Catholic voters are most likely to join with Evangelicals in supporting socially conservative candidates, they should pay attention to this distinction. If they want to understand Catholic voters at all, they should realize their evangelically-worded questioning will not elicit accurate responses. Catholics are not taught to go around talking about accepting “Jesus Christ as their savior.”

Why does the Barna Group completely ignore the distinction between active and inactive Catholics, especially when they make such an effort to distinguish between “Born again Christians” and other Protestants? Their description of “Born again” means the polling instrument will not communicate with Catholic respondents in a reliable way.

Since Catholics make up the largest single Christian denomination in the United States, Barna’s findings are compromised from the start by its methodology. The general numbers are sound, those that report favorability ratings among Christians in general. But, once Barna starts reporting those same ratings among the various Christian groups, only those of mainline Protestant and non-mainline can be trusted.

This is why, for example, Barna notes that most Catholics have a positive view of President Obama (54% favorable, 45% unfavorable), while most Protestants do not (44% – 55%). This gives a false impression. If religiously active Catholics were distinguished from inactive, the numbers would dramatically change. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won the overall Catholic vote decisively but lost the Mass-attending Catholic vote.

One wonders, also, how this basic distinction among Catholic respondents would have changed these findings:

“Catholics showed a different slant from Protestants. Among the Catholic populace, the favorites were Mr. Romney (15%) and Mr. Huckabee (13%). Mrs. Palin was the only other Republican in double digits (10%), trailed by Mr. Paul (7%) and Mr. Gingrich (6%). Among Protestants, though, the frontrunners were Mr. Huckabee (16%) and Mrs. Palin (16%), trailed by Mr. Romney (11%), Mr. Gingrich (8%) and Mr. Paul (7%).”

Would Mass attending Catholics have preferred Romney more or less? What if they liked Palin more? Now, that would have made the news! Also, it’s very likely that Gingrich’s numbers would have risen and Santorum’s have gotten on the radar screen among active Catholics.

On its web site, The Barna Group describes itself as “a visionary research and resource company located in Ventura, California.” If the researchers at Barna want to represent findings on the Christian population of this nation, it’s clear they need a back to basics lesson about how to speak to Catholics and how to understand their voting patterns.

By Deal Hudson, President of Catholic Advocate and author of Onward Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States