Archbishop Chaput on politics and secularism

Archbishop Chaput: “We do believe in the separation of church and state, but we don’t believe in the separation of faith from our political life"

The following comes from the CNA:

As the country approaches election day in two weeks, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia is encouraging Catholic voters to place their faith above their allegiance to political parties.

“I’m always encouraging our people minimally to vote, maximally to run for political office, and make sure that they’re Catholic prior to being Democrat or Republican and that they put that into practice politically,” he told CNA in Rome on Oct. 22.

Archbishop Chaput echoed the calls of other American bishops to have their flocks consider their faith in the voting booth.

“We do believe in the separation of church and state, but we don’t believe in the separation of faith from our political life,” he said.

“It’s very important for Catholics to make distinctions when voting that they never support intrinsic evils like abortion, which is evil in all circumstances. That’s a lot different from different economic policies” that people can reasonably disagree on, the archbishop explained.

His remarks come as an Oct. 22 Gallup poll shows the “economy in general” is the issue rated most important by Americans as the election nears.

“But people who are practicing Catholics cannot have alternate views on abortion,” he stated. “Such foundational issues have a huge impact and it’s important that Catholics make those distinctions.”

“A person (candidate) might be right on a lot of secondary issues but wrong on the foundational issues. And if that’s the case, it would be very difficult for a Catholic to vote for someone who, for example, favors unlimited access to abortion … undermines the meaning of marriage or supports policies that really undermine the foundation of our culture.”

Archbishop Chaput sees Philadelphia as a great example of both Catholic and civic virtue. He noted that it both produced two canonized saints, John Neumann and Katherine Drexel, and was the location of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

“I’m standing on the shoulders both in terms of the Church and the civic community,” the archbishop pointed out. “We have to produce new saints and be really good citizens.”

He also connected patriotism with love of parents and family, saying that “loving our country is really participating in love of our families.”

And “the meaning of family,” he asserted, is “hugely important for the future health of our country.”

“Having mothers and fathers who love us and love one another provides security for the healthy growth of children. Confused family life leads to confused participation in the broader life of the community.”

The Catholic vote has tended to follow the rest of the electorate in recent years, but with the current campaign for president running neck-and-neck, Gov. Romney and President Obama are vying for every segment of voters they can.

The latest polling from Gallup suggests that Romney has 51 percent of the Catholic vote while Obama has 49 percent.

In the 2008 election, 53 percent of Catholic voters supported Obama, and 47 percent supported GOP candidate John McCain.

Archbishop Chaput noted that “Catholics who go to church vote quite differently than Catholics as a group, and that Catholics who take their faith seriously, for them it’s much more than a cultural affiliation – it’s a very personal affiliation with Jesus Christ and his community.”

Test of Fire: Election 2012

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."
-Alexis de Tocqueville

Fr. Barron comments on Why It Matters That Our Democracy Trusts in God

Cardinal Zen on China's War Against the Catholic Church

The following comes from the Time Magazine blog:

For the third time in a year, China has declared war on the Vatican, according to one preeminent Cardinal. The Chinese government-sanctioned Catholic Church ordained Joseph Huang Bingzhang as a Catholic bishop July 14 in the city of Shantou, in southern Guangdong province. The move was made despite the express opposition of the Pope. This marks the third ordination without papal approval since last November, and has been viewed by the Holy See as an "unnecessary" and "spiteful" course of actions, according to Hong Kong's Bishop-Emeritus and current Cardinal, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, SDB.

Zen, who wore a large, silver Jasmine flower pin — a recent Chinese symbol of revolution — on his left side while talking with TIME, said the church's main objection centers on the Chinese government's insistence on calling its state-run Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association legitimately "Catholic," yet impeding the papal prerogative within China.

"You can start a new church, but don't call it a Catholic church," says Zen.

For many decades, the officially atheistic Chinese government and the Catholic Church were largely at odds, even while the CPCA's stated goal was to help the religious community. Estimates of Chinese Catholics have ranged from four million to 14 million people. Two years ago, however, relations between the Vatican and Beijing largely normalized and ecclesiastical leaders leaders dared to hope that they would be allowed some autonomy in China, Zen says.

This proved to be false when the government ordained Joseph Guo Jincai as a bishop against the Pope's will last November, and then ordained Lei Shiyin as a bishop on  June 26. The latter ordination was the most offensive to the Vatican, according to Zen, because the now-excommunicated Lei was under official investigation by church authorities (several unconfirmed reports say this is for breaking his vow of celibacy by having an affair with a woman that resulted in the birth of a child.)

"All of this brings disgrace on our leader," Zen said. "This is a war."

Priests within China have struggled negotiating their allegiance to both the Pope and their country. While the Vatican has made official proclamations attempting to exert its influence, the government has allegedly used rougher measures.

Zen alleged that two separate Catholic bishops have been detained by the government for nearly 14 years, and their families are not allowed to visit them. Whether or not these accounts are in fact rumor, in the past decade, according to Zen, nationalism has begun to win out. "Before there were people, who in their heart were loyal to Rome. Unfortunately, recently, the Holy See has been forced to accept candidates who the Holy Father has called 'opportunists,'" he says.

But the July 14 ordination was the biggest insult of all, according to Zen. Four of the seven bishops who lead the ordination attempted to go into hiding as a way of avoiding participation, Zen says, but they were found by armed authorities and forced to ordain Huang.

Zen said he received multiple confirmations from Catholics within China as to the veracity of this story, but the perception is almost more important than whether or not the Chinese really did threaten even state-backed priests: if the Vatican believes its autonomy is under attack, then discontent is sure to mar all further interactions in China. "This last ordination is particularly bad," Zen said. "This is causing pain and division and surely is not contributing to 'harmony' which [the Chinese government] always say is their purpose."

Yet while the Vatican may direct its protestations at Beijing, Zen underscored that he did not believe the central government even knew, let alone cared, about the ordination conflict. Instead, he said, any force directed at priests and complete disregard for papal authority is more likely the dominion of the CPCA and the larger State Administration for Religious Affairs.

These bureaucratic organizations are led, according to the Pope in a 2007 decree, by "persons who are not 'ordained', and sometimes not even baptized," yet they "control and take decisions concerning important ecclesial questions, including the appointment of Bishops."

A Tribute to President Ronald Reagan: Happy 100th Birthday!

Today we remember the 40th President's 100th Birthday! You can see a great deal of information on this amazing leader and American President by checking out his Presidential Library here!

Here is one his memorable quotes:

"With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child is not a living human being, then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us."

A Discussion with William F. Buckley Jr.

Former President Bush's memoir will highlight influence of Pope John Paul II

The following comes from the CNA:

An early preview of President George W. Bush's forthcoming memoir “Decision Points,” has revealed that the book will discuss the former president's relationship with Pope John Paul II—especially the Pope's influence on his decision to restrict embryonic stem cell research.

The Pontiff and president met publicly in 2001, 2002 and 2004, for discussions that displayed both profound agreements and serious differences between the two men.

On October 28, 2010, the Drudge Report posted exclusive details from the president's memoir (available November 9). Their first look at “Decision Points” mentioned that the Pope's vision of a “culture of life” helped the president understand the dignity of embryonic human lives, even as proponents of embryonic research urged him to consider the possible benefits.

During their first meeting, in July of 2001, Pope John Paul II reminded the president that “a free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception to natural death.”

“Through a vibrant culture of life,” the Holy Father told Bush on that occasion, “America can show the world the path to a truly humane future, in which man remains the master, not the product, of his technology.”

According to the Drudge Report preview, President Bush was strongly moved by the Pope's cultural vision, as well as his personal witness. John Paul II had been suffering from Parkinson's disease for up to a decade at the time of the meeting. But he opposed research into any possible treatment that would have involved the destruction of embryonic lives.

The Pope's words and witness that summer led the president to make a decision protecting embryonic life in crucial ways. On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced that federal money would not fund research involving any further destruction of embryos for research purposes. The ban remained in place throughout his administration.

Although the president's address on stem cells drew some criticism for its moderately positive take on in vitro fertilization (which also involves the mass production and killing of embryos), many observers praised his cautious approach to bioethical questions, as well as his advocacy of adult-derived stem cell research.

Crown Publishing Group, the publishers of the former president's book, has revealed that “Decision Points” will also detail the considerations that led to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In regard to this decision, President Bush did not agree with Pope John Paul II.

The Holy Father publicly opposed the “Bush doctrine” of preemptive war against countries suspected of threatening the U.S., stating that war was to be regarded only as a last resort once all other options were exhausted. On March 18, 2003, two days before the invasion, the Pope warned of “tremendous consequences” for the Iraqi people, and said there was “still time to negotiate” to avoid war.

That same day, President Bush declared that America had exhausted its options, describing the invasion as a necessity due to weapons of mass destruction allegedly being prepared by Saddam Hussein. When the two men met again in 2004, the Pope reaffirmed that the stance against war remained “the unequivocal position of the Holy See.”

Nanny of the Month

William F. Buckley Jr.'s Faith and Politics

In William F. Buckley Jr., Reason contributor Jeremy Lott delves into the famed public intellectual's life, politics and Catholicism. From the founding of National Review to his opposition to civil rights legislation to his embrace of pot legalization, Lott details how Buckley's religion hugely shaped his political principles.

Lott, the author The Warm Bucket Brigade (a history of the vice presidency) and In Defense of Hypocrisy, sat down with Nick Gillespie to discuss Catholicism, communism, and Buckley's late-life rebranding of himself as a "libertarian journalist."


They also talked about Lott's new gig as editor of the website, RealClearReligion.org, a just-launched sister site to the immensely popular and influential RealClearPolitics.com.

3 Reasons Obama's Education Vision Deserves an F

"I Want Your Money" Movie Trailer

The Solidarity Difference by George Weigel

The following comes from the  Denver Catholic Register site:

Thirty years ago, on Aug. 31, 1980, an electrician named Lech Walesa signed the Gdansk Accords, ending a two-week-old strike at that Hanseatic city’s Lenin Shipyards. Walesa signed with a giant souvenir pen featuring a portrait of Pope John Paul II. The choice of pen was not, as Marxists might have said, an accident. Neither was the distinctive revolution that unfolded in the wake of the Gdansk Accords, which were forged over two weeks of high drama on Poland’s Baltic coast.

The Accords were the pivot between John Paul’s Polish pilgrimage of June 1979 and the rise of the “Independent Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarity” in September 1980.  Fourteen months before the strike, John Paul II had ignited a revolution of conscience that had inspired countless numbers of people to “live in the truth,” to live “as if” they were free—as the period’s mottoes had it. “Living in the truth” gave a special texture to the Gdansk Accords, which in turn led to the unique social and political phenomenon that was Solidarity.

There had been labor unrest in Poland in 1953, 1956, 1968, 1970, and 1976. In each instance, the Polish communist regime pacified the workers (in whose name these Marxists putatively ruled) by a combination of divide-and-conquer tactics, economics bribes (usually involving food prices), and brutality. 1980 was different, and the difference that made 1980 different was the John Paul II difference—a moral difference.

I try to capture that difference in “The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II—The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy,” which Doubleday will publish on Sept. 14:

“[This] moral difference showed itself almost immediately as the Gdansk shipyard strike broke out on Aug. 14, 1980.  It was an occupation strike, in which the workers took over the entire shipyard complex, thus creating an oasis of free space in the totalitarian system. Rigorous discipline was maintained, aided by an absolute ban on alcohol in the yards. Religious seriousness was manifest, publicly evident in open-air Masses and confessions. Perhaps most crucially from the point of view of what followed, the workers, having been tutored by John Paul II in the larger meaning of their dignity as men and women, refused to settle for the economic concessions the regime quickly offered.

“Thus on the night of Aug. 16-17, the Inter-Factory Strike Committee [MKS] was established to publish a broader set of demands, including the establishment of independent, self-governing trade unions…The famous ’21 Points’ agreed upon by the MKS presidium…emphasized economic change while including a full menu of basic human rights, specifically mentioning, among others, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and an end to discrimination against religious believers ‘of all faiths’ in terms of access to the media. The goals of dissent had been enlarged and deepened; as one worker-poet would put it a few months later, ‘The times are past/when they closed our mouths/with sausage.’”

Solidarity’s tumultuous path over the next nine years paved the way for the Revolution of 1989, the (largely nonviolent) collapse of European communism, and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. There were endless arguments as Walesa and the Solidarity leadership wrestled with the inevitable turbulence of a new trade union that was also a mass social movement and a de facto political opposition—in a society where the communist party and the state apparatus it controlled tried to occupy every available inch of social space. That the Catholic Church in Poland had tenaciously maintained its independence for 35 years in this suffocating social and political environment helped make Solidarity possible; the Church’s independence also helped provide a protected space in which the movement could continue after Solidarity-the-trade-union was dissolved, under the martial law imposed on Poland on Dec. 13, 1981.

During its epic period, Solidarity was a unique blend of moral and intellectual conviction, economic good sense, political shrewdness, and personal courage, all of which were shaped by the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and the personal witness of John Paul II. Its example should inspire free people, and those who aspire to freedom, everywhere.  

Pro-life leaders: Senate bill bans conscientious exemption, allows billions for abortion

The following comes from the CNA:

Pro-life leaders on Friday discussed the prospects of the Senate health care bill, warning that the present version will ban conscientious exemptions among private health care plans while making “billions” of dollars available for abortion.

They urged pro-life Democrats to “stand firm” until better legislation can be written.

Speaking in a Friday press conference Tom McClusky, the senior vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), characterized the legislation as “the biggest expansion of government-funded abortion since Roe v. Wade.”

Also addressing the conference was Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Secretariat of Pro-life Activities.

The Catholic bishops, supporters of universal health care since 1919, wanted to support the bill, he commented. They did not seek an explicitly pro-life bill, but only a “neutral bill.”

However, the Senate legislation is “morally unacceptable,” with billions in community funding appropriated outside of the Hyde Amendment abortion funding restrictions and not covered “by any limitation.”

A very long line of federal court precedent holds that if abortion funding is not explicitly prohibited then it is required, Doerflinger warned. The statutory language, which trumps Department of Health and Human Services regulations, will free up “billions” for direct funding for abortions.

The Senate bill also lacks Hyde restrictions barring funding for benefits package that include abortion. Its attempt to segregate abortion funding actually creates a “really stunning new conscience problem.”

“If a private health plan … decides to cover abortion, it must collect from every enrollee a separate payment each month just to pay for other people’s abortions. That’s not the situation now,” he said.

At present health plans “carve out” options for Catholic organizations seeking insurance that does not cover abortion.

“This actually bans conscientious exemptions, it makes the situation worse than it is now.

“I didn’t think it was possible for health care reform to make things worse than insurance companies on a matter of conscience, but this one has.”

According to Doerflinger, the bill also lacks “Hyde-Weldon” language preventing government bodies from discriminating against pro-life health care providers that refuse to perform abortions.

“There’s not a reason in the world the Senate should have rejected it … they just can’t stand to have anything in there that actually shows some respect for the conscientious objections of Catholics and others who object to abortion.”

National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) legislative director Douglas Johnson said that pro-abortion groups wanted to use health care legislation to “greatly expand access to abortion.”

Many of the Democratic leadership’s proposed solutions disguised this, he charged, adding that the proposals were not subjected to much critical scrutiny by the media.

In his view, the Stupak Amendment was the “most bipartisan thing that’s happened the entire Congress.” One in four Democrats voted for the bill and only one Republican did not.

President Obama could have accepted the Stupak Amendment and ensured it a place in the base Senate bill. If he had done so, Johnson explained, 60 votes would have been required to remove the legislation from the Senate version.

“We wouldn’t be having this discussion today,” he continued.

“The president did just the opposite. He lamented the House vote. He expressed opposition to the Stupak Amendment. And he and his agents collaborated with the Senate Democratic leadership to make sure that it did not get into the base bill.”

Johnson said that this vote would be a factor on the NRLC candidate scorecard and indeed would be “a career-defining vote.”

“If they are voting to put this bill on the president’s desk, they own it.”

Tony Perkins, FRC president, said the abortion issue was the “single largest issue” for bipartisan opponents of the bill. He compared the legislation to the Roe v. Wade decision in its possible breadth of scope.

The issue will “dramatically” change the political landscape in the November elections, Perkins predicted, because many people are concerned not only about abortion but about “forcing everyone to fund it.”

He claimed that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said everybody will be “forced to contribute to funding, providing access to and subsidizing abortion through this plan.”

“We don’t know what’s going to happen on Sunday,” he continued, discussing the scheduled vote on the bill, saying pro-life advocates will be working “aggressively” in 28 Congressional districts across the country.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Rep. Peter DiFazzio (D-Ore.) have unexpectedly opposed the bill with objections on grounds other than abortion, speakers told the press conference.

However, hard numbers were not available. Speakers warned that secure votes for the Senate bill were being announced to “create a perception of momentum” and were selectively reported in the media.

Perkins said that efforts against the bill are being made in hope that Congress will “yield and go back to the drawing board.”

“There are measures here that we would support. There are problems in our health care delivery system that need to be reformed, and there are ways to do that. We want to be a part of that, but not in way that jeopardizes human life, limits the freedom of Americans, and creates the tax burden on families that it will if enacted.”

Asked about speculation of separate Senate legislation to be passed after the health care passage, McClusky said they were “very wary” of any deal that “promised something down the road.” Perkins thought it would not fix the bill but was a “fig leaf” to allow pro-life Democrats to vote for this bill “thinking that the Senate is going to fix it.”

Doerflinger said it was “very important” that pro-life leaders “stand firm.”

Other topics at the press conference included tax resistance to mandatory abortion payments, the status of Catholic organizations which endorsed the bill contrary to the bishops’ position, and whether Catholic members of Congress could vote for the bill in good conscience.

Don't Be Fooled -- Senate Health Bill Includes Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

This is a great prayer need. The following comes from Fox News and was written by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah:

In a mad rush to pass a health care reform plan leading House Democrats now intend to take up the Senate-passed version of the bill, arguing that the Senate language prohibits federal funding of abortion. Besides that fact that this simply not true, it also demonstrates the lengths the president and his allies will take to pass this bill against the will of the American people.

For almost 35 years, the law of the land has been an explicit prohibition against federal taxpayer dollars being used to pay for elective abortions, known as the Hyde amendment, after the late great Illinois congressman. This is a policy supported by the majority of the American people.

In fact, this hard-fought explicit ban was included in the health care bill that passed the House last year. Regrettably, the Senate did not follow suit and instead passed a bill that would allow hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortion. That is a simple fact. Unfortunately, in a mad rush to secure enough votes, leading House Democrats now intend to take up the Senate-passed bill, arguing that the Senate language prohibits federal funding of abortion. Besides that fact that this simply not true, it also demonstrates the lengths the president and his allies will take to pass this bill against the will of the American people.

Just this week, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement saying, “Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures.”

First, the Senate bill allows elective abortions to be offered through the newly-created individual state health insurance exchanges and multi-state health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and through federally-subsidized plans in already-existing community health centers.

Second, there is nothing in this legislation that requires any of these programs to live up to both the spirit and letter of the Hyde amendment that Congress has included each year in spending bills that fund the government. This not only prevents federal funding of elective abortions, but also erects an iron-clad firewall against any private money for abortion being mixed with any federal or state health program receiving federal dollars. This applies, for example, to Medicaid, a health program for the economically disadvantaged that is funded by both federal and state governments. If any resources are used for elective abortions that money must be kept completely separate from Medicaid. This is sound policy that must be maintained.

Regrettably, the Senate-passed bill doesn’t include this firewall. Anyone who doesn’t earn enough money would qualify for a federal subsidy to help pay for their health plan in the state exchanges, including plans offering elective abortion coverage. Some argue that under the Senate-passed bill, federal funding would be “segregated” so no federal money would pay for abortions. But this is a violation of the Hyde amendment, which also prevents the federal funding of insurance that covers elective abortion.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that there would only be one health plan in any given state that does not include elective abortion. And even if you are opposed, you may well be railroaded into choosing a plan that covers it, because you might be looking for the best plan to treat a sick child or your own health condition.

What’s more, passing a new state law is the only way an individual state could truly ensure that elective abortions are not included in the plans offered through a state insurance exchange. That would be easier in some states than in others, but that’s unfair to those who are morally opposed to federal funding of abortion and happen to live in states where passing such a law would be extremely difficult.

Lastly, under this proposal, community health centers would receive a dedicated stream of money outside the annual congressional process to fund the government which is where the Hyde prohibition is maintained. So that means that for the first time federal money could be used to fund abortion at a community health center.

Those are the facts, and anyone who thinks the Senate abortion language is strong enough should think again. That is because, regardless of one’s position on this controversial issue, it is entirely reasonable to expect that a person who is fundamentally and morally opposed to abortion should not have to sanction its use with their hard-earned tax payer dollars.

Orrin Hatch represents Utah in the United States Senate.

Rep. Stupak: Abortion not the only reason to oppose Senate health bill

This comes from the CNA:

A recent Wall Street Journal article detailed an interview with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), in which he said he opposes the current Senate health care bill for reasons other than the issue of federally funded abortions.

Rep. Stupak said on Tuesday that if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi brought the Senate health care bill to the floor “It'd be very hard to vote for this bill even if they fixed the abortion language.”

When he was asked whether or not he would for the Senate legislation as is, the Congressman responded, “nope.”

Besides taking issue with the Senate health care bill providing federally funded abortions, Rep. Stupak said that the House version of the bill had tighter restrictions on insurance companies as well as new payment methods that would help doctors provide quality service – neither of which are in the Senate version.

The Michigan representative also takes issue with the fact that House members will have vote on the Senate bill without being ensured that the changes they've requested within the legislation will ever get approved. “You’re going to make members vote for a bill that’s going to be hung around your neck come Election Day,” he said. “After sending so much legislation to the Senate, we just don’t trust that they’re going to do it.”

Rep. Stupak still feels, however, that were Speaker Pelosi to present a finalized health care package, it still wouldn't pass. “I’m not optimistic they’d get the votes in the House,” he added.

The congressman stepped into the national political spotlight last year when he introduced an amendment to the House health care reform bill that maintained the Hyde Amendment ban on using federal funds to pay for abortions. The Stupak Amendment passed in the House by a vote of 240-194 last November.

The Truth About Terror

This is a disturbing look at the motives and the intention of radical terrorists. We have to continue to pray for all those who hate. We have to also pray for our own conversion of heart in this time of confusion and hatred. May God bless our nation.

Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

This is too funny! Hat tip to Patrick Madrid!

Cistercian Nuns and Scott Brown

Hat tip to Deacon Greg on this one. The new senator-elect from Massachusetts is not Catholic, but he has a long-standing relationshipwith an order of nuns:

The family worships at New England Chapel in Franklin, a member of the Christian Reformed Church of America, a Protestant denomination, but has developed a special relationship with an order of Cistercian Catholic nuns at Mt. St. Mary's Abbey in Wrentham.

Many of the 48 nuns are from other countries, and Brown's first contact was in response to their request for help on an immigration matter.

"It has turned into a beautiful friendship,'' said Sister Katie McNamara, the monastery's nurse.

Brown raised money to buy a special golf cart to transport elderly sisters, and, with his wife, has assisted efforts to raise $5.5 million needed to replace the order's 50-year-old candy factory with an environmentally friendly plant, complete with solar panels and a wind turbine. The order is self-sustaining through sale of its candies and fudges.

"We pray for them every day,'' Sister Katie said of Brown and his family.

"When you have nuns praying for you three times a day and you're not Catholic, anything that anybody can do or say about me, it's Teflon,'' Brown said. "It bounces right off.''

With the prayers of the nuns on his side he was bound to do well!

Another Catholic mobilization under way on abortion in health reform

We have to continue to pray and work to keep abortion out of the health care bill. This would be devastating for each and every one of us to be paying for abortion on demand and we should not stand for it. This comes from the CNS:

In the thousands of pages that make up the Affordable Health Care for America Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the House- and Senate-passed versions, respectively, of health reform legislation, the word "abortion" only comes up a few dozen times.

But as congressional leaders work to hammer out an agreement on health care reform, a key player in the U.S. bishops' lobbying efforts thinks an insistence on expanding abortion funding in this country could sink the reform movement that the bishops have encouraged for decades.

"It's a high-risk strategy" for Democratic leaders in Congress to work behind closed doors to reconcile the House and Senate health reform bills, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, told Catholic News Service Jan. 11.

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid present a bill that has not been debated openly and say, "Take it or leave it," Doerflinger added, "Congress may leave it."

Throughout the process, Catholic leaders have been clear that they want to see the U.S. health system reformed but not in a way that expands abortion funding or leaves too many people behind.

"It's very difficult to figure out even what's going on" in the reconciliation process, Doerflinger said. "We hear very little about what's getting worked out."

In January, through a series of bulletin inserts and pulpit announcements, the bishops were mobilizing Catholics nationwide to tell their senators and representatives that the final health reform bill must not "advance a pro-abortion agenda" and must be "accessible and affordable for all," including immigrants.

The bill that comes closest to meeting those criteria is the House's Affordable Health Care for America Act. It specifically states, "No funds authorized or appropriated by this act (or an amendment made by this act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life.

The House bill also gives purchasers in the "health insurance exchanges" full choice of health plans without any requirement that they pay for elective abortions, but the Senate bill does not, according to an analysis of the two bills prepared by Doerflinger for the bishops.

"The Senate bill allows all but one plan in each state exchange to cover abortions, and forces each purchaser of these plans to write a separate check each month to pay for other enrollees' abortions," the analysis says.

Doerflinger said the Senate bill also is flawed because its language restricting abortion funding through health plans is not permanent and could change from year to year and because the limitation "doesn't cover the entire bill." For example, the section of the bill on a new $7 billion program expanding community health centers around the country has no restrictions on abortion funding, he said.

Another failure in both bills is a lack of full conscience protection for health care providers, plans, institutions and employers, Doerflinger said.

Another USCCB official is working to improve the final bill's treatment of immigrants.

Kevin Appleby, director of migration and policy services in the bishops' Migration and Refugee Services, said in a Jan. 13 telephone briefing with media that "Congress would be wise" to lift the current five-year ban on legal immigrants participating in federal health programs like Medicaid.

"Many of them will soon be Americans," he said. "Why wait to give them good health?"

He and others participating in the briefing also advocated for allowing undocumented immigrants to buy health insurance through the state exchanges with their own money.

"Access to health care should not be governed by where someone was born but by their God-given dignity," Appleby said.

The bulletin insert that the bishops have asked parishes nationwide to put out as soon as possible offers separate but similar messages for Catholics to send to their senators and representatives.

The House message says in part: "I urge you to work to uphold essential provisions against abortion funding, to include full conscience protection and to assure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. Unless and until these criteria are met, I urge you to oppose the final bill."

The proposed message to senators expresses disappointment that their bill "fails to maintain the long-standing policy against federal funding of abortion and does not include adequate protection for conscience" and urges opposition to any final bill that does not meet the bishops' criteria.

On the USCCB Web site at www.usccb.org/action, people can send a prewritten e-mail to members of Congress expressing those points.

"Our message agrees with the public sentiment in the country," Doerflinger said, noting that a recent poll showed 68 percent of Americans -- and 69 percent of women -- did not want abortion to be covered by their health insurance plan.

"Most people don't see abortion as health care," he said. But the ultimate fate of health reform legislation "might depend on how Congress decides this divisive issue."