Richard M. Doerflinger

Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March, amidst an unresolved debate about the legislation’s impact on abortion and conscience protection. As president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Francis George explained then that the bishops had to oppose the final bill despite their strong support for health care reform, because (among other things) it “appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion.” Others dismissed this charge, saying that legislative intent and a last-minute executive order from President Obama prevented abortion funding.

Fast-forward to July, when one of those PPACA provisions appropriating billions of dollars was about to take effect. Section 1101 of the Act provides $5 billion for “high-risk insurance pools,” providing much-needed health coverage for people with “pre-existing conditions” who cannot otherwise get coverage. This program ends in January 2014, when these patients can join others in purchasing qualified health plans on the new state insurance exchanges. State governments can propose the benefits list and other details for covering their residents in these pools, but the federal government makes final decisions and provides all government funds for subsidizing this coverage.

Pro-life groups found that several states – beginning with Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland – had announced on their web sites that their statewide plans would include elective abortions. (New Mexico used the phrase openly; Pennsylvania said its plan would not cover “elective abortions,” but would cover abortions that are legal under the Supreme Court’s decisions – meaning any abortion an abortionist sees as needed for a woman’s social or emotional “well-being.”) These plans were described as already approved, and New Mexico had already begun signing up enrollees.

Public criticism of this development prompted immediate denials and evasive responses. An initial response from the Department of Health and Human Services insisted that “federal funds” would not cover these abortions – leaving open the prospect that everyone who enrolls could be forced to fund other people’s abortions with their premium dollars. Late on July 14, however, HHS issued a new and more welcome response, saying that abortions simply “will not be covered” in these plans except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life, as has long been true in federally subsidized health plans for federal employees.

Now pro-abortion groups are crying foul, with the interesting complaint that this pro-life outcome goes beyond anything in PPACA or the executive order. In other words, they are saying the bishops’ analysis of loopholes in these documents is right.

The high-risk pool program is just one funding stream left open to abortion by PPACA. For now it seems pro-life forces have won the first round, through careful research and a prompt public response. But PPACA needs a legislative fix to close such loopholes once and for all. That fix is offered by the “Protect Life Act” (H.R. 5111) sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) and 115 other House members, including 13 Democrats. Whether these or other billions of dollars in taxpayers’ funds are used to help kill unborn children is not a matter we should leave to shifting politics or to chance.

Life Issues Forum by Richard M. Doerflinger, Associate Director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. To learn more about the bishops’ pro-life activities see www.usccb.org/prolife.

This should have been good news; but alarms were raised when a careful reading of the approved insurance plan revealed it would cover abortions. Following a public outcry, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a statement that the agency will act to exclude abortion from this program.

The Bishops of Pennsylvania welcomed the commitment from HHS to exclude abortion from the federal health insurance program and echoed the sentiments of a July 15 statement issued by the chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):

This week it was reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had approved a new high-risk health insurance program for residents of Pennsylvania that by its terms would cover abortions without meaningful limits. This federal program, established by the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), will provide health services until 2014 to uninsured persons with pre-existing conditions. The Pennsylvania plan, while purporting not to fund “elective” abortions, made clear in its text that all abortions that satisfy the requirements of certain Pennsylvania statutes (i.e., all abortions that are not illegal in that state) would be covered, and reimbursed, with a combination of private premiums and federal funds drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This first announcement that $160 million in federal funds would be used to provide pro-abortion coverage raised an alarming precedent. Later the news also became public that the state of New Mexico would be covering “elective abortions” in its federal high-risk pool, which was already accepting enrollees.

Last night, however, HHS reacted to public criticisms by announcing that it will act to exclude abortion from this federally funded program, in accord with the assurances that Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have repeatedly made that PPACA will not be used to promote abortion. We welcome this new policy, while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients. This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion. Such legislation would mirror the Hyde amendment and similar provisions which prevent such abortion funding in all other federal health programs.

In this program as in others, the issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates. It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening.

For the latest news and information about the Bishops’ positions on health care reform, log on to www.pacatholic.org/health-care.

Archbishop Basil M. Schott

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) is saddened by the news that Metropolitan Basil M. Schott, Archbishop of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, died on Thursday, June 10, 2010.  He will be laid to rest next week.

As the leader of one of the 10 Catholic dioceses that comprise the PCC, Archbishop Schott was a member of the Board of Governors.  After many years of service to Byzantine Rite Catholics and to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, he will be sorely missed.

More information about Archbishop Schott and the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh is available at www.archeparchy.org.

While increasing identification with the “pro-life” label spans both sexes and all age groups, adults ages 50-64 and young adults ages 18-29 saw the largest gains.

In looking at two-year averages beginning in 2000, Independents and Republicans have become more likely to call themselves “pro-life’ while Democrats have increasingly identified themselves as “pro-choice.” Gallup posits that “the trends by party identification suggest that increased political polarization may be a factor in Republicans’ preference for the “pro-life” label, particularly since Barack Obama took office.” Pro-life advocates offer other reasons, including high-profile debates over the legality of partial-birth abortion and national discourse on President Obama’s healthcare proposals.

While Americans are more readily identifying themselves as “pro-life,” interestingly, polling on the morality of abortion has remained mostly unchanged with about half of those polled saying that abortion is “morally wrong.” Just 38 percent consider abortion to be “morally acceptable.”

Printer Friendly Version

Did the Catholic bishops of the United States support the final version of the health care reform law?

No. Although the bishops have for decades supported universal health care, they opposed the final bill because (1) it failed to preserve the status quo with regards to abortion funding, (2) it unjustly discriminated against immigrants, and (3) failed to adequately protect conscience rights.

If the bishops really wanted health care reform, why didn’t they accept the bill as “less than perfect,” but better than nothing?

Certain principles cannot be compromised, especially those concerning the protection of human life, religious liberty, and the dignity of human persons. No matter how much good a proposed law might do, it cannot be supported if it violates those fundamental principles.

Why were the bill’s abortion provisions inadequate?

In one sense, it was the absence of a particular abortion provision – one that clearly prohibited all abortion funding – that was the problem. Unlike the House bill that passed last year, the Senate bill, which was the basis for the final bill, did not have sufficient prohibition.

What are the abortion problems in the bill that passed?

Without a global ban on abortion funding, some of the funds appropriated in the bill could be used to fund abortion. For example, the new law provides additional funding for the Community Health Centers, but the law does not prohibit that money from being used for abortions.

The law provides subsidies to help purchase plans that cover abortion.

Doesn’t the Hyde Amendment apply to the new law?

No. The Hyde Amendment, which for years has prohibited federal money from paying for abortions – except in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother – and from being used to purchase insurance policies that include abortion, does not apply to the new law. The Hyde Amendment, which must be passed annually, only applies to appropriation bills with the amendment attached, particularly the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Aren’t there “Hyde-like” provisions in some parts of the new law?

Yes, there are some provisions like the Hyde Amendment in the bill, but they are limited in scope and do not apply to all the funding in the act. For example, school-based health clinics funded through the new law cannot provide abortion services. Also, there are some limits on the use of federal monies to directly pay for abortions. There are, however, other funds appropriated in the new law that have no abortion restrictions.

If the Community Health Centers are funded through the Department of Health and Human Services, why doesn’t the Hyde Amendment apply to them?

The Hyde Amendment only covers certain appropriations and is not triggered solely because the funds go through a particular agency.

But I heard that the Community Health Centers do not perform abortions, so what is the problem?

The Community Health Centers do not currently perform abortions with federal dollars because that funding has, until now, been subject to the Hyde Amendment.

Does the new law expressly direct the Community Health Centers to provide and pay for abortions?

No. However, the Community Health Centers must provide primary health services, including “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, … obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians,” and “family planning services.” Courts have ruled that this language requires such facilities to provide abortion services unless Congress expressly acts to exclude such services. In this case, Congress failed to expressly exclude coverage for abortion at the Community Health Centers. The absence of the exclusion makes the centers subject to the court decisions mandating abortion services and funding.

How does the new law subsidize the purchase of insurance policies that include abortion?

Current federal law prohibits the use of federal money to directly pay for abortions and to purchase insurance policies that include abortion. For example, federal employees are not provided health coverage directly from the federal government. Like most of us, they are covered by insurance policies, the premium for which is paid, at least in part, by the employer, which in this case, is the federal government. Employees can choose from hundreds of plans. However, because federal dollars are involved, the Hyde Amendment applies and none of those plans can include abortion.

Congress failed to apply this policy to the new health care reform law. Under the new law, many Americans will have at least part of their insurance premiums paid by the federal government, though you won’t see it directly. Unlike the federal employee system, the plans you can buy can include abortion.

But I thought the money for abortion was paid for by the individual and kept separate?

To maintain the appearance that federal money is not being used to cover abortion, the law states that if an individual chooses a plan that covers abortion, the person must write two checks, one for the coverage of abortion and one for everything else. The federal government adds its own money stream to help cover the individual’s premiums. Only the “abortion” money paid by the individual is supposed to be used to pay for abortions. However, the fact remains that the policy subsidized by the federal government includes abortion and that the funding segregation does not alter the fact that money from one pocket is being transferred to another. Moreover, the “segregation” policy presents another problem in that it forces people to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Will everyone have to pay the “abortion premium?”

That depends. Any family that has to buy a subsidized plan that happens to cover abortion —for example, because its coverage or provider network are necessary to meet the family’s health needs—will be forced by the new law to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions. There are no exceptions.

What if there are no plans in my area that do not include abortion?

The law requires that there be at least one plan within a regional exchange that does not cover abortion. However, not every plan will be identical. It may be that the plan or plans within the regional exchange that do not cover abortion do not meet your family’s needs for other reasons.

Can Pennsylvania opt out of abortion coverage altogether?

It appears that in the health exchanges that are to be created, Pennsylvania could provide that no plan in the exchange will cover abortion. Or, it might provide that the plans in the exchange will cover elective abortion only in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

Does Pennsylvania need to pass a new law to opt out of abortion coverage by plans in the exchange?

If opting out of elective abortion coverage entirely is to occur, it appears that a new law would have to address that.

If plans are allowed to cover abortion, at least one plan in the exchange would have to provide elective abortion coverage in the case of life of the mother, rape or incest. But such a plan might not be appealing to consumers for other reasons such as it is not as good as other plans which do provide abortion coverage.

If Pennsylvania can opt out of the abortion coverage in plans, is there any problem for Pennsylvania health insurance consumers?

Pennsylvania taxpayers would still be forced to indirectly subsidize policies that cover abortion simply because tax dollars go to the federal coffers which subsidize the health insurance provided by reform. In addition, the federal law is flawed because in other states, which do not exclude abortion coverage, it forces people there who obtain insurance through an exchange to pay a separate premium on a monthly basis solely to cover abortions for others.

Did the executive order signed by President Obama fix these problems?

No. An executive order cannot change provisions of the new law or run afoul of the interpretation that courts will give to the new law. In fact, the executive order signed by the President does not even purport to fix the law’s funding problems.

If all this is true, why are some saying that the new law does not fund abortions?

Look closely at what is being said and not said. Some say that the bill does not directly “provide funding for abortion” or something to that effect. It is true that the bill does not explicitly authorize abortion funding. Nor does it mandate abortion funding. However, the absence of an explicit prohibition on all types of abortion funding combined with the court-created law on abortion opens the door for abortion funding.

Also, note that few are now saying that the new law preserves the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment, in addition to preventing abortion funding, prohibits the use of federal money to subsidize plans that include abortion, something that the new law clearly permits.

Similarly, note that these same people are avoiding the very serious problem of mandating the payment of an abortion premium by some families.

In short, pay attention to what is not being said. Ambiguity could be purposely misleading or might actually reflect a lack of understanding about how a complicated piece of legislation ties in with years of sometimes complicated court cases about abortion.

Why did the bishops oppose the bill’s immigration provisions?

The final bill not only denies legal immigrants access to Medicaid for five years, but also prohibits undocumented immigrants from buying insurance for their families in the exchanges using their own money. People should never be denied coverage because they can’t afford it, because of where they live or work, or because of where they come from and when they got here. The basic premise of health care reform is that people should have insurance coverage because, in our system, emergency care is not a substitute for genuine health care. Forbidding immigrants from participating in the health care system unjustly denies a basic human right.

How does the new law fail to protect conscience rights?

For one thing, as discussed above, it forces some people to pay for another person’s abortion, even when doing so violates their religious or moral beliefs. But there are other problems as well.

Although the new law prevents insurance plans from discriminating on the basis of a refusal to participate in abortion, the law does not prevent government from discriminating on that basis. In fact, the Senate expressly rejected such a provision.

Except in the case of abortion, the law does not prevent the federal government from mandating health insurers to pay for procedures that might violate the religious or moral beliefs of insurance purchasers or plan sponsors.

Because the new law gives the executive branch some authority to regulate the selection of providers by health plans, these plans may also be required to exclude providers because they have a conscientious objection to particular procedures.

While the law provides for the non-preemption of some state laws regarding abortion, there is no comparable provision with respect to state conscience laws. The failure to include such a provision places those state conscience laws at risk.

Was Congress made aware of the bishops’ concerns about these three issues (abortion, immigrants, and conscience protection) before the final vote and their position on the final bill?

Yes. The bishops made their priorities and concerns known throughout the process. As late as the day before the House vote, the bishops let every member know that if the bill could not be fixed, they should vote no on the bill.

Were the pro-life members of Congress made aware that the executive order would not fix the bill’s problems?

Although the language of the executive order was not finalized and made public until shortly before the House vote on Sunday, representatives from the USCCB expressed on Saturday that the bishops’ legal advisors did not think an executive order could legally solve the problems.

Some say that the reconciliation process would not have allowed for these type of issues to be fixed. In light of that, why did the bishops keep pushing for a fix?

When it comes to Washington, if there is a will, there is a way. Parliamentarians gave a range of opinions regarding what could or could not be accomplished through reconciliation.

If, in fact, there was no way to fix these problems through reconciliation, then Congress should have pursued another course, even if that meant starting over. Political convenience or opportunity cannot justify violating fundamental moral principles.

Did the bishops secretly want health care reform to fail?

No. Catholic teaching states that access to adequate health care is an essential good. The U.S. bishops have supported comprehensive health care reform since World War I and have never wavered from that position.

Did the bishops secretly want the bill to pass, even with the abortion funding problems?

No. Catholic teaching states that the dignity of all human life must be protected. The U.S. bishops have opposed federal funding for abortion since before Roe v. Wade and have never wavered from that position.

The new law expands Medicaid coverage. Does that mean more abortions will be funded?

Medicaid is still subject to the Hyde Amendment, which means that only abortions for rape, incest, and life of the mother will be funded. The exception to this is those states that have opted include funding for all abortions with their share of the Medicaid responsibility.

Does the new law mandate school-based health clinics?

No. However, the law does provide new funding for the creation of school-based health clinics.

Would those school-based health clinics provide abortions?

No. School-based clinics was one of the few areas where Congress expressly prohibited abortion funding.

Does the new law fund sex education?

Yes and no. The new law appropriates new money for programs that teach “comprehensive” sex education that includes teaching about contraception. At the same time, the law also authorizes new money for abstinence only programs. The states, however, must come up with matching funds to access the money.

Does the new law mandate end-of-life counseling?

No. One of the earlier versions of the bill allowed Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling, but did not require it. Nevertheless, Congress removed the provision from the final bill. It remains to be seen whether end-of-life counseling will be considered an essential service that insurance companies would be required to include in order to participate in the insurance exchanges. However, even if that were to happen, it would just be a reimbursable service, not a mandate.

Where can I find out more?

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has detailed information about health care reform online at http://usccb.org/healthcare/

Adapted from the North Dakota Catholic Conference

Young people or adults who experienced sexual assault years ago are finding their feelings of pain, anxiety and anger intensified with every revelation and commentary in the media. That information is necessary to be brought into the light of day, but it is emotionally hurtful to victims nonetheless.

Victim assistance coordinators of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia report a surge of calls from victims or their loved ones at present. Any victim experiencing renewed intensity of pain and depression must know that he or she need not carry that heavy burden alone. Archdiocesan victim assistance coordinators (call 1-888-800-8780) are ready to provide confidential support or simply listen to one’s strong emotions and concerns.

Or the coordinators will readily refer a person uncomfortable speaking with a representative of the Church to non-religious organizations throughout the region such as the Network of Victim Assistance in Bucks County (call 1-800-675-6900). Counselors walk with the victim or loved one to help him or her deal with their feelings on an ongoing basis with empathy and compassionate care.

The current revelations of sexual abuse should elicit from all the Catholic faithful a stronger sense of compassion for victims. They are members of the body of Christ who need their fellow Catholics’ compassion and understanding. As Cardinal Justin Rigali cited St. Paul on Holy Thursday, “if one part of Christ’s Body, the Church, suffers, all of us suffer.”

Extending genuine compassion * literally, to “suffer with” * to victims of sexual abuse and those who care for them testifies that we are truly an Easter people, a people of hope and the strength to love. Even amidst experiences of immense suffering, Easter “is all about new life,” the Cardinal said on Easter Sunday morning. “We are called,” he said, “to walk in newness of life and to set our hearts on God, with love for one another.”

This is no easy task. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ gives us every day “the power to respond to God’s love, to show mercy * to others, and to serve one another,” the Cardinal said. “All of this is what, through the power of Christ’s resurrection, we are called to do with renewed fervor and commitment on this Easter Day.”

This article appeared in the April 1, 2010, edition of the Catholic Standard & Times in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

As in the United States which faced similar charges nine years ago, the accusations – often involving clergy sexual abuse of minors from decades ago – center primarily on Church leaders failing to remove known sexual offenders from active ministry, and an alleged pervasive Church response of silence, secretiveness and cover-up.

As the Executive Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated in a message this Holy Week, “The recent emergence of more reports of sexual abuse by clergy saddens and angers the Church and causes us shame. If there is anywhere that children should be safe, it should be in their homes and in the Church.”

As with the stories that took place a decade ago in the United States, there is an undeniable element of truth in the reporting, although it is often lost in agenda-driven rhetoric. But despite the steamy anti-Catholicism, it is true that the response of some within the Church in Europe in the past was to rely on the therapeutic culture of the times. There was a belief that sexual offenders could be cured through a mix of therapy and a change in location.

As they learned, that this was not true. While no one made such decisions thinking that children would be hurt, predators were returned to ministry and victimized young people again.

In Europe the problem was abetted by the belief that sexual abuse of minors was somehow an American crisis rather than a worldwide tragedy. It was with the support of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and future Pope Benedict XVI, that the U.S. bishops’ determination to address the issue of clergy sexual misconduct with speed and severity was given forceful approval.

At the heart of the New York Times’ series and the media stampede that has followed, is the contention that Cardinal Ratzinger, as archbishop of Munich in 1980, had been complicit in the reappointment of an abusive priest who abused more children in his new assignment.

More seriously, it is charged that as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981-2005), Cardinal Ratzinger delayed or prevented the removal of abusive priests, particularly a Wisconsin priest who had abused deaf children in the 1950s and early 1960s. In turn, there has been then a more generic charge, as columnist Maureen Dowd put it, that “the pope is in too deep. He has proved himself anything but infallible” by his handling of clergy sexual abuse.

In the Munich case, a German priest accused of sexually abusing a child was allowed to return to ministry after limited therapy when Pope Benedict was the archbishop of Munich and Freising in 1980. In 1985, three years after Cardinal Ratzinger had taken up his position in Rome, the German priest faced new accusations of abuse and was suspended from the priesthood and convicted in German civil court.

The Vatican has denied that the Holy Father was involved in the reappointment of the abusive German priest and an archdiocesan official who had returned the priest to ministry has taken full responsibility for the “serious error” of that decision. A memo to Archbishop Ratzinger at the time noting the reappointment reinforced that the decision had been made at that level and was not made by the Archbishop. News reports, however, interpreted the memo as a “smoking gun” showing Archbishop Ratzinger was complicit in the actual decision. The Vatican has consistently denied any such involvement on the part of the pope.

Even more disturbing is the case of Father Lawrence Murphy of Milwaukee that has received ongoing coverage. In 1974, accusations came to light that Father Murphy abused dozens of children at St. John’s School for the Deaf where he was principal. Father Murphy was placed on leave and he moved to northern Wisconsin in the Diocese of Superior where he lived in a family home with his mother. His ability to practice ministry was withdrawn and he was never reassigned to any ministry from that point until his death in 1998.

The police investigated the charges concerning Father Murphy but no arrest was ever made. But advocacy on the part of the victims led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee informed the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith that he intended to conduct a trial of Father Murphy for violating the sacrament of Confession in committing sexual abuse. That crime falls under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Father Murphy was notified in September 1996 that a canonical trial would proceed against him in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

Throughout 1997, the trial was prepared for and in January, 1998 the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee was ready to proceed against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, citing bad health, appealed to the Congregation asking that he be spared that local trial, but agreeing to continue out of ministry. Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested pastoral measures – rather than a complicated trial – to ensure that Father Murphy would continue in his present state and never return to ministry. However, the trial proceeded and Father Murphy died on August 21, 1998, before the completion of the trial.

Simply put, the canonical trial was never delayed by Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. Once the trial commenced in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it ended only when Father Murphy died. There had been no interference, no hold-up for 20 years from Rome by Cardinal Ratzinger or the doctrinal congregation – which was not informed of the charges until 1996 – no assignment of Father Murphy to ministry after the accusations came to light, no interference and no cover-up.

Media reports have stated that Cardinal Ratzinger as prefect for the doctrinal congregation was the person at the Vatican responsible for reviewing sexual abuse accusations from 1981 to 2005. That is not true. Only in 2001 was his office given that responsibility and once he had that responsibility, the Vatican proceeded to become directly involved in the issue which, prior to that, had been primarily handled on the local level.

This direct involvement by Cardinal Ratzinger was instrumental for the bishops of the United States to be able to proceed with the implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, which has become a model for the Church throughout the world in protecting children. Under Cardinal Ratzinger, sexual abuse cases were handled rapidly and fairly unlike in the past where they could languish for years.

As pope, Benedict XVI has been instrumental in addressing the scourge of the abuse of children. He has forcefully spoken on the issue time and time again, made adjustments in canonical procedures to make certain of a swift response in removing offenders, has personally met with victims as he did during his pastoral visit to the United States, and he has addressed entire national conferences of bishops as he most recently did so forcefully with the bishops of Ireland in a pastoral letter dated March 19, 2010.

His words to priests and religious in Ireland who had abused children were firm and final: “You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonor upon your confreres….”

To the bishops of Ireland, he stated: “It cannot be denied that some of your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors in judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has undermined your credibility and effectiveness.”

The Church now provides the most effective, efficient and comprehensive means to address the scourge of child sexual abuse. There are no organizations – nationally or internationally – that have developed such an effective means to address this tragic issue.

As the executive committee of the US bishops stated in Holy Week, “We live out this commitment through the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, which calls us to respond with compassion to victims/survivors, to work diligently to screen those working with children and young people in the Church, to provide child abuse awareness and prevention education, to report suspected abuse to civil law enforcement, and to account for our efforts to protect children and youth through an external annual national audit.”

And in doing so, they have the full support – and leadership – of Pope Benedict XVI.

By Robert Lockwood, General Manager of the Pittsburgh Catholic.  This article appeared in the April 2, 2010, edition of the Pittsburgh Catholic.

During April, child protection staff in dioceses nationwide reexamine and publicize efforts for child protection. This has been a key effort of the church since 2002, when the U.S. bishops adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, in response to clergy sexual abuse of children.

Kettelkamp, executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Secretariat for Children and Young People, developed the list after reviewing what the Catholic Church has learned in facing the clergy sexual abuse problem. The ten points follow.

Sexual molestation is about the victim. Many people are affected when a priest abuses a minor, but the individual most impacted is the victim who has suffered a violation of trust that can affect his or her entire life. The abuser, the family of the abused, and the parish community are all affected by this sin and crime, but the primary person of concern must be the victim.

No one has the right to have access to children. If people wish to volunteer for the church, for example, in a parish or school, they must follow diocesan guidelines on background checks, safe environment training, policies and procedures, and codes of conduct. No one, no matter who they are, has an automatic right to be around children or young people who are in the care of the church without proper screening and without following the rules.

Common sense is not all that common. It is naive to presume that people automatically know boundaries so organizations and families have to spell them out. For example, no youth minister, cleric or other adult leader should be in a child’s bedroom, alone with the child.

Child sexual abuse can be prevented. Awareness that child sexual abuse exists and can exist anywhere is a start. It is then critical to build safety barriers around children and young people to keep them from harm. These barriers come in the form of protective guardians, codes of conduct, background evaluations, policies and procedures, and safety training programs.

The residual effects of having been abused can last a lifetime. Those who have been abused seldom “just get over it.” The sense of violation goes deep into a person’s psyche and feelings of anger, shame, hurt and betrayal can build long after the abuse has taken place. Some have even described the feeling as if it has “scarred their soul.”

Feeling heard leads toward healing. Relief from hurt and anger often comes when one feels heard, when one’s pain and concerns are taken seriously, and a victim/survivor’s appropriate sense of rage and indignation are acknowledged. Not being acknowledged contributes to a victim’s sense of being invisible, unimportant and unworthy; they are in some way “revictimized.”

You cannot always predict who will be an abuser. Experience shows that most abuse is at the hands of someone who has gained the trust of a victim/survivor and his/her family. Most abuse also occurs in the family setting. Sometimes the “nicest person in the world” is an abuser, and this “niceness” enables a false sense of trust to be created between abuser and abused.

There are behavioral warning signs of child abusers. Training and education help adults recognize grooming techniques that are precursors to abuse. Some abusers isolate a potential victim by giving him or her undue attention or lavish gifts. Another common grooming technique is to allow young people to participate in activities which their parents or guardians would not approve, such as watching pornography, drinking alcohol, using drugs, and excessive touching, which includes wrestling and tickling. It is also critical to be wary of age-inappropriate relationships, seen, for example, in the adult who is more comfortable with children than fellow adults. Parishes can set up rules to guide interaction between adults and children.

People can be taught to identify grooming behavior – which are the actions which abusers take to project the image that they are kind, generous, caring people, while their intent is to lure a minor into an inappropriate relationship. An abuser may develop a relationship with the family to increase his credibility. Abusers might show attention to the child by talking to him/her, being friendly, sharing alcohol with a minor and giving the child “status” by insinuating that the child is their favorite or “special person.” Offenders can be patient and may “groom” their victim, his or her family, or community for years.

Background checks work. Background checks in churches, schools and other organizations keep predators away from children both because they scare off some predators and because they uncover past actions which should ban an adult from working or volunteering with children. If an adult has had difficulty with some boundaries that society sets, such as not driving while intoxicated or not disturbing the public peace, he or she may have difficulties with other boundaries, such as not hurting a child. Never forget that offenders lie.

How well is your community doing in the 2010 Census? With the Census Bureau’s interactive ‘Take 10 Map,’ you can track how well your community is participating in the Census by seeing what percentage of households have mailed back their forms. The map is updated every day as questionnaires are returned, and allows you to compare your community’s performance this decade to how well it did in 2000.  View the Take 10 Map online.

You can also see how Pennsylvania is doing.  View Pennsylvania’s daily participation rate online at the PA Census 2010 site; the Data Center has also been creating a weekly county-by-county map of census participation rates (just click on ‘Participation Rates’). You can view the map, download a PDF copy, or download the data for states, counties, municipalities or census tracts. This map will be updated every Wednesday while the Census is ongoing.

With the failure of Congress to include adequate statutory restrictions on using federal tax dollars to pay for abortion coverage, pro-life advocates use a different word to describe the new law – disappointing.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a legal analysis of the bill and the president’s corresponding executive order regarding abortion funding and conscience protection. The analysis concludes that the health care reform package violates both principles of the Hyde Amendment, a long-standing federal policy that says no appropriated federal funds can be used for elective abortions directly and no funds can pay for health insurance coverage of elective abortions.

The concern about direct federal abortion funding lies in the Community Health Center section of the bill. CHCs provide primary health services, including “family planning services.” A separate appropriation of billions of dollars will be made to CHCs without Hyde Amendment restrictions. Nothing in the existing law or new law stops these centers from providing abortions using federal tax dollars.

The concern about insurance coverage of abortion is in a different part of the bill. Some people will get federal financial assistance to purchase certain health plans. Section 1303 of the Act attempts to segregate funds within these health plans in order to keep federal dollars distinct from private funds used directly for abortion. However, the financial assistance will still pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions. And any family having to buy such a subsidized plan—for example, because its coverage or provider network best meets the family’s needs—will be forced to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions. The Act specifies that a plan including elective abortions “shall” obtain this fee from every enrollee, allowing no accommodation for conscientious objection.

The president’s executive order, despite its stated intent, does not correct these problems. The fact that an executive order was even considered in an attempt to clarify or limit the legislation points to its deficiencies. The Bishops believe that new legislation to address the abortion funding problems will almost certainly be required.

Tax dollars paying for abortion is an important question for our country; but is it really the main question? Are tax dollars paying for abortion more offensive than private dollars? Shouldn’t we really be asking why anyone should have to pay for another’s abortion? Why is this procedure still legal?

Sixty-seven percent of Americans polled last September opposed requiring people to pay for abortion coverage through their taxes. Clearly, people disagree with paying for someone else’s abortion. Even more encouraging, for the first time since 1995, a Gallup poll last May indicated more than half of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life and young people (age 18-29) are more pro-life than their grandparents. The minds and hearts of Americans are being converted to the truth about abortion. We are making strides.

Historic. Landmark. Unprecedented. Let’s pray that one day we will use those words to describe pro-life laws across the country that put an end to abortion, and protect and respect the rights of the unborn, once and for all.

PCC Column April 2010 by A.B. Hill, Communications Director of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference – the public affairs arm of Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops and the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania.