That’s a real e-mail from a real person.  The man who sent it last week was either very candid or very foolish about his anger: he added his real name and e-mail address.  I’ve withheld them here because I like to hope that most people, or at least many of them, are better than the poisonous things they sometimes write. But this e-mail does teach a useful lesson, because it’s not just a case of a random bigot getting in touch with his inner bully.  Instead, it’s a snapshot of the anti-Catholic bitterness that drives some of the loudest voices in the current health-care debate.

Let’s remember that the Founders encouraged an active role for religion in the nation’s public life.  Let’s recall that freedom of speech for Catholics, their leaders and their Church is constitutionally protected, just as it is for all citizens.  Let’s also finally remember that Catholic-baiting is one of America’s oldest and most favored forms of hatred.  The irony is that some of today’s ugliest bigots posture themselves as socially “progressive” and work in politics or the mass media, or both.

Catholics entered this year’s national health-care discussion with good will and a long track record of public service.  Catholic medical care is a national network.  Most Catholics, as part of their Christian faith, see decent health care for all persons as a social obligation.  They’re eager for some form of good health-industry reform.  But “reform” isn’t a magic word.  It isn’t an end in itself.  The content of the reform matters vitally.

For months Catholic leaders have worked vigorously with congressional and White House staff to craft sound health-care reform legislation.  Service to the poor, the sick and the suffering is part of the Church’s Gospel vocation.  The bill passed by the House on Nov. 7 was a step toward a goal that is shared, in principle, by most Catholics.  Like most bills, it was a mixed success.  Critics argue that it lacks adequate conscience protections; that its penalties are extreme and largely unknown to the public; that it’s too complex; that it violates the Catholic principle of subsidiarity; and that it’s financially damaging and unsustainable.

These concerns are serious; they demand our reflection.  There is nothing “mandatory” for faithful Catholics about supporting or opposing this legislation in its current form.  That’s a matter for personal decision.  But the House bill does seek to address the health-care crisis in a comprehensive manner; and it does —at least, so far—meet a minimum moral standard that makes Catholic support possible.

Those two words, “so far,” bring us back to the point of this column.  The House health-care bill—the Senate will now develop its own version—meets the minimum threshold for Catholic support for one simple reason:  Catholic pressure forced abortion and abortion funding out of the legislation.  Abortion has nothing to do with advancing human health.  Abortion and public funding for abortion, no matter how discreetly it’s hidden, have no place in any genuine health-care reform.  This has been a key moral principle for Catholics every step of the way in the health-care discussion.  With Roe v. Wade likely to be secure under this president, excluding abortion and its funding from reform legislation would be a modest, sensible compromise for “pro-choicers.”  It might prove that something like common ground on abortion policy really is achievable in a Washington that describes itself as post-partisan.

Instead, the opposite has happened.  The abortion-driven anger dumped on Catholic beliefs, leaders and the Church at large since Nov. 7 would make the Know-Nothing bigots of the last century proud.  We’ve seen it from members of Congress, the news media, the abortion industry, and sad, deluded people stuck in their rage like the man quoted at the beginning of these remarks.

Here’s the moral of the story:  Catholic witness has a cost.  When we’re willing to pay it, we prove who we are as disciples—and the nation benefits.  When we’re not, life’s a lot more comfortable.  But that was never the point of the Gospel.

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

The missionary spirit
The command of Jesus to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) always includes the command of charity in which Jesus tells us that “whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). In the life of Jozef DeVeuster (1840-1889), who took the religious name of Damien when he entered the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, we see a marvelous example of missionary zeal and heroic charity toward those who were certainly considered the “least” in his day.

During the years of his studies for the priesthood, Damien prayed daily before an image of Saint Francis Xavier, who is the patron saint of the missions, that he also might become a missionary. His wish was fulfilled when he was sent to the missions of his Congregation in Hawaii, in place of his brother, also a priest, who had become ill and unable to take up that assignment. Shortly after his arrival in Hawaii, he was ordained a priest on May 21, 1864.

We know a great deal more today about immunity to disease than was known in past centuries. As we all know, even with our high degree of technological knowledge, diseases still spread and are introduced from one part of the world to another.

In the past, when explorers and tradespeople went to lands that were new for them, often they did not realize that they were also introducing diseases for which the native people had acquired no immunity. This had occurred in the Hawaiian islands. Traders had unwittingly introduced a number of diseases to the islands which the people had no means of resisting. One of these was leprosy.

As a well-meant means of containing the disease and halting its spread, the King of Hawaii ordered those afflicted with leprosy to be brought to a remote part of one of the Hawaiian islands called Molokai. Although the intention of the Hawaiian government was not to abandon or starve these poor people afflicted with leprosy, their circumstances caused the lepers quickly to be reduced to living in terrible conditions. There was a complete breakdown of law and order and the desolation and despair felt by the lepers caused them to sink into a morass of drunkenness and immorality.

The local Superior of the Fathers of the Sacred Hearts who had missions in the Hawaiian islands wanted to help these poor people but, because of the nature of the situation, he asked for volunteers from among his Religious, rather than assigning anyone to Molokai under obedience. Four of the Religious volunteered, among them was Father Damien, who was chosen for this assignment.

Father Damien begins his work
As is often the case with missionaries, Father Damien found himself confronted not only with the spiritual needs of the lepers of Molokai but also their material needs. He immediately began to address both of these. He brought sanitation, order and cleanliness to the inhabitants and attempted to restore a sense of their own dignity to them. He organized the building of houses and a hospital and helped with the work himself. He dug graves and helped to bury the dead with his own hands.

We can only imagine the natural repulsion he must have felt to the sights and smells he encountered as he went about his work. As a member of a Religious Congregation, he would have normally lived in community, with the support that religious life in common brings to each of its members. However, Father Damien was alone in his mission. While I was in the service of the Holy See and assigned to Madagascar, I recall so well visiting the leprosaria there and admiring the heroic charity of the women Religious who took such loving care of those who are still afflicted with this terrible disease today.

Eventually, Father Damien discovered that he had contracted leprosy himself. Here is what Pope Benedict XVI said about Father Damien in his Homily at the Mass of Canonization: “His missionary activity, which gave him such joy, reached its peak in charity. Not without fear and repugnance, he chose to go to the Island of Molokai to serve the lepers who lived there, abandoned by all. Thus he was exposed to the disease from which they suffered. He felt at home with them. The servant of the Word consequently became a suffering servant, a leper with the lepers, for the last four years of his life. In order to follow Christ, Father Damien not only left his homeland but also risked his health: therefore as the word of Jesus proclaimed to us in today’s Gospel says, he received eternal life (cf. Mark 10: 30). Let us remember before this noble figure that it is charity which makes unity, brings it forth and makes it desirable. Following in Saint Paul’s footsteps, Saint Damien prompts us to choose the good warfare (cf. 1 Timothy 1:18), not the kind that brings division but the kind that gathers people together. He invites us to open our eyes to the forms of leprosy that disfigure the humanity of our brethren and still today call for the charity of our presence as servants, beyond that of our generosity” (11 October 2009).

Lessons from Father Damien’s life
The Church always presents the saints to us as models to be imitated as well as heroes to be honored. What lessons do we learn from the life of Father Damien, who lived out his Christian vocation in circumstances which seem so different from ours? The first lesson is that his circumstances were really not all that different.

All around us, we see individuals who are looked upon as having little worth. Likewise, we see the results of human despair and a lack of recognition of one’s own dignity and the dignity of others. The message of Jesus has a “holistic” characteristic. It certainly has as its goal our eternal salvation and that of our neighbor, but since God the Son became flesh and “a man like us in all things but sin,” His message affects the entire person. This is why it brings peace and joy to those who believe in it and this affects not only individuals but families, homes and nations. This is the message of the Kingship of Christ, whose liturgical solemnity we will soon be celebrating and it is the message which brought Father Damien to Molokai.

We must never forget that Father Damien was not just a humanitarian. This is underlined by a woman of our own time who also worked with those who are most abandoned and whose dignity is not always easily recognized: Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Whenever she was praised or honored for her work, she was always quick to point out that she did what she did not because she was a humanitarian, but because she was a Christian. Just as she took the most abandoned from the gutters where they were dying and cared for them with love, so Father Damien did for the lepers of Molokai. Both of them did this because they saw Jesus Himself in those whom they were serving.

While all of us should meditate on Father Damien’s selflessness and Christian charity and find ways to imitate it according to our own vocation, at this time I would like to appeal in a special way to our young people. The young love adventure! They also have a great generosity of heart when they are confronted with a cause which they think is worthwhile. What a great adventure we find in the Christian heroism of Father Damien!

I appeal to our young men and women to listen to the invitation of Jesus to serve Him and follow Him intimately, especially in service to those who are most in need. Give yourselves to Him generously and do not be afraid because, as our Holy Father said at the beginning of His pontificate, echoing Pope John Paul II: “I say to you, dear young people: Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life” (Homily, 24 April 2005).

Saint Damien, pray for us and give us generous hearts after the Heart of Jesus!

“With very few exceptions,” he went on, “Catholics in the United States did little or nothing to condemn the dramatically moral evil of slavery, and demand its end. And that is to our shame to this day.”

Those words came from my mentor, friend and teacher, Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, the legendary professor of the history of the Catholic Church in the United States, during his sobering lecture on the Church and slavery, when I was a graduate student at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps we have learned our lesson, for Catholic leaders—committed laity, religious sisters and brothers, clergy, bishops—have been on the front lines of the premier civil rights issue today, the right to life. And that is to our credit. And that’s good to ponder during October, Respect Life Month.

The comparison of abortion to slavery is an apt one. The right of a citizen to “own” another human being as property—to control him/her, use him/her, sell him or decide her fate—was, prior to 1865, constitutional, sad to say.

That “right” to own a slave was even upheld by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (whose Chief Justice at the time, Roger Brooke Taney, was a Catholic, “personally opposed” to slavery!) in the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Decision, declaring that a slave who had escaped and claimed freedom had to be returned to his “master,” because he had no rights at all.

Tragically, in 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court also strangely found in the constitution the right to abortion, thus declaring an entire class of human beings— now not African-Americans, but pre-born infants—to be slaves, whose futures, whose destinies, whose very right to life —can be decided by another “master.” These fragile, frail babies have no civil rights at all.

Our faces blush with shame as we Catholics admit we did so little to end slavery; but we can smile and thank God that the Church has indeed been prophetic, courageous and counter cultural in the right to life movement. As an evangelical pastor recently commented to me, “We may criticize you Catholics for some things, but we have sure been inspired by your early and courageous leadership in the pro-life movement.”

A few years ago, I met with a prominent philanthropist, who described himself—and I always know I’m in for trouble when I hear this—as a “former Catholic.” Now, he went on to say, he was a “progressive,” and would consider a large gift to the Catholic Church “if you changed your position on abortion.”

I must admit I’m afraid I made no headway at all when I patiently tried to explain to him that this was hardly a “position” of the Church that could change, but a conviction grounded in natural law, shared by most other world religions, and, for that matter, dramatically obvious in our American normative principles, which hold that certain rights are “inalienable”—part of the inherent human makeup—the first being the right to life itself.

Many issues and concerns in addition to protecting the baby in the womb fall under the rubric of the right to life—child care, poverty, racism, war and peace, capital punishment, health care, the environment, euthanasia—in what has come to be called the consistent ethic of life. All those issues, and even more, demand our careful attention and promotion.

But the most pressing life issue today is abortion. If we’re wrong on that one, we’re just plain wrong.

When our critics—and their name is legion—criticize us for being passionate, stubborn, almost obsessed with protecting the human rights of the baby in the womb, they intend it as an insult. I take it as a compliment.

I’d give anything if I could claim that Catholics in America prior to the Civil War were “passionate, stubborn, almost obsessed” with protecting the human rights of the slave. To claim such would be a fib. But, decades from now, at least our children and grandchildren can look back with pride and gratitude for the conviction of those who courageously defend the life of the pre-born baby.

I well remember being in Baltimore two years ago for the installation of their new archbishop, Edwin F. O’Brien, a native son of this archdiocese in whom we are very proud. He gave a stirring homily, recounting how his predecessors had often been on the forefront of promoting issues of justice in our country: Cardinal James Gibbons came up, of course, for his defense of the rights of labor back in the 1880s; Cardinal Lawrence Sheehan, who was jeered at a City Council meeting in 1965 for speaking on behalf of open housing for African-Americans; Cardinal William Keeler, criticized for advocating the rights of immigrants. And now, the new archbishop concluded, the tradition has to continue, as the Church must be on the front lines of the premier justice issue of the day: the protection of the right to life of the baby in the womb.

It’s October, Respect Life Month.

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we are writing to express our
disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill. We remain committed to working with the Administration, Congressional leadership, and our allies to produce final health reform legislation that will reflect our principles.

We continue to urge you to

1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.

2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level.

3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.

We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria. However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.

Sincerely,
Bishop William F. Murphy Diocese of Rockville Centre
Chairman Committee on Domestic Justice & Human Development
Cardinal Justin Rigali Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Chairman Committee on Pro-Life Activities
Bishop John Wester Diocese of Salt Lake City
Chairman Committee on Migration

In the current debate over health care reform, it has become evident that a number of
Americans believe that the lives and health of only some people are worth safeguarding, while
other classes of people are viewed as not deserving the same protection. Such an attitude is
deplorable, all the more so in the context of health care. Sanctioning discrimination in the quality
of care given to different groups of people has no place in medicine, and directly contravenes the
ethical norms under which Catholic hospitals and health care providers operate.

Unborn children remain the persons whose lives are most at risk in America: Over one
million children each year die in abortion facilities. The Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 rendered
states powerless to halt this killing. Thankfully Congress and most states acted to prevent public
funding of abortions (with narrowly defined exceptions). Yet despite the opposition of 67% of
Americans to taxpayer-funded abortion, all current health care proposals being considered by
Congress would allow or mandate abortion funding, either through premiums paid into
government programs or out of federal revenues.

It bears repeating: Abortion — the direct, intentional killing of an unborn girl or boy – is not health care. Abortion robs an innocent child of his or her life, and robs mothers of their peace
and happiness. For 25 years, the Project Rachel post-abortion ministry of the Catholic Church
has helped women move beyond their grief and remorse after abortion, helping them find peace
by accepting God’s forgiveness and by forgiving themselves and others involved in the abortion
decision. Abortion funding can only increase the number of dead and grieving.

Unborn children are not the only human beings disfavored under current proposals. Many
people insist that undocumented persons living and working in the United States should not be
allowed in any new system to purchase health-care coverage, and that poor legal immigrants be
denied coverage for the first five years they are in the United States. Do immigrants forfeit their
humanity at the border? How can a just society deny basic health care to those living and
working among us who need medical attention? It cannot and must not.

While most Americans agree that those who cannot afford health insurance should have access to health care, some commentators have gone so far as to suggest offsetting the cost of expanded coverage by curtailing the level of care now given to elderly Americans. Other pundits have suggested that treatment decisions should be based not on the needs of the elderly patient, but on the patient’s allegedly low “quality of life” or the cost-effectiveness of treatment calculated over the patient’s projected lifespan. Such calculations can ignore the inherent dignity of the person needing care, and undermine the therapeutic relationship between health professionals and their patients.

It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are
offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused
aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty.

Some environmentalists now claim that the most efficient way to curb global climate
change is to make “family planning” more widely available in the developing world. They report
that an average of 2.3 pounds per day of exhaled carbon dioxide can be eliminated from the
atmosphere by eliminating one human being. As used by population control advocates, the
innocuous term “family planning” includes abortifacient contraceptives, sterilization, and manual
vacuum aspiration abortions.

Oregon, where health care for low-income patients is rationed by the state, has denied
several patients the costly prescription drugs needed to prolong their lives, while reminding them
that the assisted suicide option is conveniently offered under Oregon’s health plan.
Many scientists justify the manipulation and killing of embryonic human beings in stem
cell research, based on unsubstantiated hopes of finding new cures. Yet the facts increasingly
show this approach to pose risks to patients, and to women who may be exploited to provide
eggs for the research.

Death is not a solution to life’s problems. Only those who are blind to the transcendent
reality and meaning of human life could support killing human beings to mitigate economic,
social or environmental problems.

The antidote to such myopia is to recover an appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of
each unique human being. One could begin by spending a day with a young child. The average
child is a wellspring of joy and giggles, capable of daring leaps of imagination, probing curiosity,
and even reasoned (though sometimes self-centered) appeals for justice. Children delight in God’s creation and love their family unconditionally. God gave every human being these
marvelous aptitudes, and children can help us recover and appreciate them anew.

Since the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, a cultural hostility to children
has grown. They are often depicted as costly encumbrances who interfere with a carefree adult
life. No fewer than six recent books are dedicated to defending the childless-by-choice lifestyle –
for selfish reasons, or to counter “overpopulation,” a thoroughly discredited myth. In fact, if
married couples were to have more children, Medicare and Social Security would not be hurtling
toward bankruptcy. Since 1955, because of fewer children and longer life spans, the number of
workers has declined relative to the number of beneficiaries, from 8.6 to only 3.1 workers paying
benefits to support each beneficiary. Without substantially more young people to enter the work
force as young adults, in 25 years, there will be only 2.1 workers supporting each beneficiary.

Eliminating our young does not solve problems even on pragmatic grounds. It adds to them.
Children, and those who are dependent on us due to disability or age, offer us the opportunity to grow in patience, kindness, and love. They teach us that life is a shared gift, not an encumbrance. At the end of life, we will be judged on love alone. Meanwhile, in the midst of so many challenges to life, we look to "Christ Jesus our hope" (1 Timothy 1:1), who offers to all the world a share in his victory over death.

[Cardinal Rigali chairs the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). ]

Transition from Latin to the vernacular in the Liturgy

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council had this to say about the language to be used in the celebration of the Sacraments: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36).

We know that, in reality, this impetus of the Council eventually led to a New Order of Mass, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 and the eventual celebration of the sacraments almost entirely in the language of the people.

During the first four centuries of the Church’s existence, as far as we know, the Liturgy was celebrated in Latin, Greek or Aramaic. Eventually, Latin alone was used in the Western Churches. The Churches of the East have their own liturgical languages.

If we were to look at some of the explanations that were given over the course of the many centuries during which the Liturgy of the Western Churches was celebrated in Latin, we would find the following principal points explaining its use: Latin is a universal language; it is able to express doctrine and prayer in a very precise and concise manner;it does not have constant changes to the meanings of words and expressions because it is no longer a spoken language.

As the Western Churches transitioned to the vernacular Liturgy, the great challenge was that of translating the texts. I mentioned the advantages that were always put forth concerning the Latin language in order to show what a challenge it is to translate the Latin words, while bringing forth both understanding and beauty, into language that is used by the people every day.

Different directives for translating the texts

With the introduction of the use of the vernacular into Catholic worship, in their official form, the liturgical texts are still published in Latin. It is then up to the various episcopal conferences to authorize translations into the language of the various countries and peoples of the world. Once those translations have been submitted to the Conferences of Bishops, they are voted upon and then submitted to the Holy See for final approval.

It is the direction or “spirit” of these translations that brings us to the next part of our brief explanation.

In 1969, the group, called the Consilium, which had been entrusted with the reform of the Roman Liturgy by Pope Paul VI, issued guidelines concerning the direction that the translations of the liturgical texts were to take.

“The guiding principle of the document was ‘dynamic equivalency,’ which means to translate basic thoughts rather than words. Those who use this principle say that they are aiming for a transfer of the same meaning from the original to the receptor language. The original words and form are important only as a vehicle for the meaning; therefore, it is the meaning alone that is truly important in the translation” (The Third Edition of the Roman Missal; web site of the USCCB). Given the nature of the Latin language, which I have attempted to explain briefly, you can see what a challenge this became to translators.

After about thirty years of these directives, the Holy See issued new instructions for the translation of the Roman Missal, which is the book we use that contains the prayers of the Sacred Liturgy.

These instructions took a different direction than those of 1969. They now directed that the translations, while taking style and the flow of language into account, were to be true accurate translations of the Latin texts found in the official liturgical books.

It might be helpful to quote the pertinent part of the Holy See’s document at this point. It reads: “While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.” (Liturgiam Authenticam, 20).

With this directive, the work of new translations, which is now nearing its completion, had its beginning.

In order to assist and guide this work, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments established the Vox Clara (“Clear Voice”) Committee in 2002. This is made up of a group of bishops and consultants from various English-speaking countries, and I am honored to have been appointed as a member of this Committee.

At the many meetings which we have had in Rome over these years, our task has been to review the English translations of the Latin liturgical texts that have been presented to the Holy See for approval.

Our task, and that of the translators and Episcopal Conferences who are working on these translations, is always to work toward implementing the clear directives of the Holy See, which I have quoted above, in the hope of having accurate, uplifting and easily proclaimable translations.

A proper period of preparation

One of the things that we have learned during the past forty years, which have been a time of great liturgical change, is that it is necessary for both priests and the lay faithful to have a period of adequate preparation and explanation for any changes that are introduced. A large portion of the new translations have already been approved by the Holy See and the Bishops of the United States will vote on the final portions at their meeting in November.

I am very grateful to the Office for Worship of the Archdiocese for the plans that have already been made to introduce and explain the new translations and provide a proper catechesis for them.

This Fall, during the workshops for priests that are conducted at this time, the theme will be the introduction and explanation of these new translations.

Through these workshops, and information that will be shared with our deacons and religious during this year-long period of preparation, we hope to build a foundation of understanding and greater appreciation of the Liturgy among our people. In this way, priests, deacons and religious will be able to aid the faithful in their understanding and appreciation of these new translations.

In anticipation of the preparation that will take place in your own parishes as the time of implementation draws closer, you may wish to refer to the web site of the Bishops’ Conference and its special section I referred to at the beginning of this article: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal.

You may also consult our own Archdiocesan web site at http://archphila.org/evangelization/worship/worship.htm.

I pray that this period of preparation may deepen the understanding we all have of the great Prayer of the Church: the Sacred Liturgy.

At this time in our nation’s history, we continually face new challenges as we witness to the Gospel in an ever increasing secularized society. Currently our civil leaders are discussing different proposals to provide greater access to health care in our country. Indeed, the Church has officially manifested her teaching, since Pius XI to Benedict XVI, in the recognition of the great importance of ensuring that all peoples have access to health care.

In principle, the Church ought to always promote wider and more complete access to health care; however, that does not mean that in practice the Church ought to support each and every plan which is proposed by civil leaders. At this time, I want to offer you some key principles that should always be used when evaluating the moral value and justice of a given plan to provide health care. The following is a brief summary of these principles, after which I will offer further explanation and application:

1. Any provisions for actions which deny the dignity of human life, especially abortion, euthanasia, whether passive or active, and embryonic stem-cell research must be excluded from all health care plans.

2. The freedom of consciences must be safeguarded. The moral voice of individual doctors, nurses, health professionals, as well as the general public, deserve reverence and respect.

3. Access to health care ought to be available to all people, including the poor, legal immigrants, the handicapped, and especially the elderly and unborn members of society.

4. The means of providing access to health care should be governed by the principle of subsidiarity, being reasonably and equitably distributed among members of society.

The Dignity of Human Life

Made in the image and likeness of God, each and every human person bears the mark of the Trinity’s own character and life. Because of this inherent dignity, each man and woman is to be reverenced with great care from the moment of conception through every stage of their life. From the right to life flow all other human duties and rights, including the duty to preserve and protect one’s own life and health with the right to the means of achieving this goal.

Any attempt to provide greater access to health care without safeguarding human life from the moment of conception is inherently inconsistent. Pope Benedict XVI shares this great wisdom of the Church in his latest encyclical letter, Caritas in Veritate, when he recalls the words of John Paul II, “A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized” (Caritas in Veritate, 15; Evangelium Vitae, 101). True health care begins with the unborn child in the womb. When a given plan to provide care fails to protect that life, it is no longer animated by a source of truth and justice, thus it will not, and cannot, flourish. The killing of unborn children through abortion or as a means to do research has nothing to do with promoting health. Both encyclicals make clear the teaching of the Church that the destruction of human life by abortion and other evils can never be a neutral question or one that is promoted by any faithful Catholic.

Conscience Rights

One of the important developments that resulted from the Second Vatican Council is found in the document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. “Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public” (DH 2-1). In the arena of health care, this statement applies both to those who work directly in health care, as well as to the general public who participate in health care plans through insurance premiums and taxes.

The practice of medicine is a tremendous gift whereby the seemingly endless illnesses and maladies that afflict the human body can be studied, known and healed. This in-depth knowledge which serves the progress of human health can also be used to promote death and destruction. The doctors, nurses and health care professionals who possess such medical expertise are prime candidates for coercion from those who would destroy the most vulnerable human lives. The right to follow one’s conscience, as informed by God, must be guaranteed. It is imperative that health professionals and institutions have the freedom to refuse to perform unethical procedures and even to refuse to refer a patient to another professional or institution for treatments they believe, according to the natural law, are immoral.

The consciences of participants in health care plans must also be respected. In no way should taxpayers or policy holders be forced to participate in plans, whether private or public, which fund procedures that violate the moral precepts of the faith. In his August 11, 2009, letter to the House of Representatives, Cardinal Justin Rigali addresses this very issue as he writes, “By what right, then, and by what precedent, would Congress make abortion coverage into a nationwide norm, or force Americans to subsidize it as a condition for participating in a public health program?” The protection of the freedom of conscience is a concern not only for those directly involved in medicine, but for all members of society. No health care plan managed by our government or funded by taxpayer money may include provisions to provide for abortion or other evils without violating the rights and consciences of citizens. The right of individuals to contest the inclusion of such provisions in privately managed or funded plans must be also safeguarded.

Access to All

One of the basic messages of the Gospel is that the love of God has no bounds or conditions. Many of the parables and actions of Jesus Christ illustrate this foundational truth. We share in this unrestricted outpouring of divine life through the infused virtue of charity in our souls. In friendship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Christian receives the ability to love all people, especially those in the greatest need.
Therefore, as John Paul II wrote, the love of the Church must “embrace the immense multitudes of those…without medical care” (Solicitudo Rei Socialis, 42).

In our day, when many times utilitarian values overlook the most vulnerable, we must ensure that the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, legal immigrants and the unborn, together with all citizens of our nation, have access to health care. Called to be the living presence of Jesus in the world, finding ways to provide medical care to those who have none is a perennial priority for the Church. In fact, health care was a chief concern of the Church in North Dakota when in the 1940’s, Msgr. Anthony Peschel, who wrote extensively on the duties and rights of individuals with respect to health care, played a major role in the establishment of health insurance programs in North Dakota.

Subsidiarity

Subsidiarity is the principle that states “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” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1883). As a society seeks to bring about any good such as health care, there are many organic and intermediate groups which cooperate together to reach the desired goal. There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good. Rather, according to the classic principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought, many different communities within society share this responsibility. These various strands of community life within society build up a strong and cohesive social fabric that is the hallmark of a true communion of persons. States, towns, fraternal organizations, businesses, cooperatives, parishes and especially the family have not only legitimate freedom to provide the goods they are rightly capable of supplying, but often times do so with far greater efficiency, less bureaucracy and, most importantly, with personalized care and love.

This is especially the case in the tremendous work that the Church has done in successfully bringing health care, from early hospitals to modern research centers, to more and more people. We see this truth vividly in the Catholic health facilities in our rural areas. As our society seeks to achieve the goal of ensuring access to health care for all, the federal government surely has a role to play, but definitely not the only role, or even the primary role. Working together with individual states to foster an environment where greater insurance options are available to all, fostering the formation of new and creative associations and finding ways in solidarity to assist financially and coordinate, when necessary, local and private entities are all desirable starting points for a task of such great scope. Honoring the principle of subsidiarity will enable all men and women to be true participants in contributing to the goal of providing greater access to health care.

Conclusion

These four principles provide a foundation for a fruitful discussion about health care reform and must be considered carefully as changes in health care policy are drafted. I encourage all of our Catholic health care facilities, medical professionals, parishes and lay faithful to become engaged in promoting genuine health care reform. I am sure this debate will not subside soon, so I also encourage you to continue to periodically check the Web sites of the North Dakota Catholic Conference (www.ndcatholic.org/) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org/healthcare/) in order to stay up to date.

Finally, may we be joined by the Holy Spirit in fervent prayer to the Father with our savior, Jesus Christ, who has said “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). He is the Lord of history who continues to guide and direct our world with the power of his truth and love. May we trust in him who continually inspires us to arduously work for the health, well-being and flourishing of all human life from the moment of conception through natural death.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

†Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila
Bishop of Fargo

In the meantime, we care for our bodies. Some want to resist natural aging through artificial means and others watch what they eat and exercise regularly; but we all age and, eventually, we all die. We have an obligation to reverence our body and care for it as a temple of the Holy Spirit, who was first given us in baptism. We have an obligation not only to take proper care of our own bodies but also to help others to care for theirs. Visiting the sick is a corporal work of mercy. Health care is an integral part of the ministry of the church.

Because so much health care is provided by Catholic hospitals and in other Catholic institutions and because the church wants everyone to be cared for compassionately and appropriately, the church is very involved in the current public debate over changing the health care “system” in our country.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is actively involved in conversations on this issue with legislators and their staff in Washington, D.C., and with the White House. Because the health care proposals are multiple, everyone is talking about a moving target. Nevertheless, there are a number of principles that shape the USCCB conversations and should influence Catholics as they speak with their own senators and members of Congress. Particularly important for us in Illinois are conversations with Sen. Dick Durbin and with Rep. Dan Lipinski. The principles and priorities we need people to think about and act upon are:

■ Support for universal health coverage that protects the life and dignity of all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable. For too many of us, especially the so-called working poor, access to health care now means a visit to the emergency room of the nearest hospital. Our society should do better.

■ Opposition to any efforts to expand abortion funding, mandate abortion coverage or endanger the conscience rights of health care providers and religious institutions. These are “deal breaker” conditions for support for any health care legislation. The Hyde and Weldon amendments to current federal health care provisions are well established in law and must be respected lest universal health care coverage become a means to advance a minority pro-abortion agenda through governmental imposition. These long-standing and widely supported protections are essential parts of the “abortion status quo” that the president publicly supports. Abortion is not health care; it is a killing. It is never medically necessary, since advances in medical science make it possible to save the life of both the mother and the child in difficult cases.

■ Support for measures to expand eligibility for public programs, such as Medicaid, to all low-income families and vulnerable peoples and by offering adequate subsidies for cost-sharing of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Efforts to control costs should be applied equitably across the spectrum of payers.

Since the conversation and the legislation keep changing, and since the USCCB priorities are not completely reflected in any current bill or in the policies of either major political party, those who want to follow the discussion more closely can regularly check a special Web site www.usccb.org/healthcare.

All of us are involved in the current debate. The bishops are doing what we should do: clarifying principles and talking to the appropriate parties in Washington, D.C.; but the bishops do not govern this country. Those who want to take their responsibilities as citizens in hand and join the public conversation should write their legislators and speak to the public media.

There are interests on all sides of the health care reform debate who seek to use the church to advance their own agendas and priorities. There is a campaign underway to fax bishops, asking why we are not working to protect the unborn. The answer is: We are, and so should every Catholic. Others are wrongly declaring there is no abortion funding in the current legislation. They are either ill-informed or deceitful. Still others ask why the bishops are not supporting health care reform unconditionally. Our response is to state the principles that are consistent with the Catholic faith. Those who hold that faith, ordinary citizens and legislators, will make these principles their own and act accordingly. Our advocacy for health care that protects the life and dignity of all is a unified message based on Catholic teaching; it is not a partisan or ideological platform.

This is a moment significant for the future of our society. Our care for one another is in crisis and should be thought through together. Beyond the public conversation, please keep this issue in your prayers and reflect on it before the Lord. He will keep us honest, rescue us from distorting others’ positions and place us squarely in the company of the poor. That’s the place we have to be to receive his blessing.

Most Catholics know more about John Carroll’s relatives, often known as the “first family of Catholics” in America, than about him. His cousin, Charles Carroll, was the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence; his brother, Daniel Carroll, was the only Catholic to sign the Constitution. Today many Catholic grade-school students are aware of the Carrolls’ important political contributions, but too few can recount John Carroll’s critical service to the Church.

Living in a society that seems to be just as hostile to Catholic beliefs as that of the eighteenth century, we fail to follow Carroll’s example at our peril. In fact, Carroll’s efforts to defend Catholics’ rights, and to embolden lay Catholics to assert those rights, rings eerily similar to our present struggle in convincing Catholics to apply their faith in the public square. Our lay faithful and clergy would be wise to emulate Carroll, who shepherded his flock toward a vibrant, enduring — and public — identity.
Rejecting the typical American Protestant idea of compartmentalizing one’s faith into a purely private pursuit, Carroll’s main thrust was to cement Roman Catholicism’s position as a legitimate, recognized force in the ideas, politics, and culture of the early republic. This was a tall order: on the eve of the American Revolution, only 24,000 Americans, or less than 1 percent of the nation’s population, were Catholic. Only 22 priests resided in the United States — all of them Jesuits, including Carroll.

Even beyond those stark numbers, most Americans possessed an incalculable hostility toward the Church, the result of Protestantism’s deep roots in the fledgling nation. That hostility often translated into legal proscriptions against Catholics, ranging from property ownership to voting rights. Thus, in the face of a newly-installed bishop whose project was to obliterate the compartmentalization of faith between private and public spheres, many non-Catholics in early America thought Bishop Carroll threatened the “order” of American society.

Nonetheless, in spite of those overwhelming obstacles, Bishop Carroll would not only protect his small flock but would build a bedrock foundation for the Church in America. By the time of his death in 1815, Carroll had overseen the quadrupling of the Catholic population in the United States, as well as the doubling in the number of clergy, the majority of whom were native-born.

Carroll secured this growth through a spirit of true ecumenism — not the empty pabulum of theological concession that some ecumenical efforts have become in the 21st century. Responding to a critic of the Church in 1785, then-Father Carroll argued that the young nation’s religious freedom ought not create religious pluralism but cohesiveness: "America may come to exhibit a proof to the world, by general and equal toleration, by giving a free circulation to fair argument, is the most effectual method to bring all denominations of Christians to a unity of faith."

It was that charitable but pointed approach that earned Carroll the respect of the founding generation, many of whom, such as Benjamin Franklin, considered him to be the single most important religious leader in the country. Carroll used that stature to insert into the nation’s discourse a distinctively Catholic view toward culture and politics.

Just as his tireless travels as a priest had offered a rich sacramental life to lay Catholics in Maryland and Virginia, his efforts as bishop promoted robust catechesis for the lay faithful and consistently clear leadership for the clergy. Carroll understood that the very absence of Church institutions and hierarchy in America provided too many opportunities for the laity, clergy, and external critics to define what Catholicism should be.

In particular, the bishop fought full-bore against the problem of lay trusteeism, a system in which the laity claimed the right to fire and appoint their pastors. Though trusteeism clearly violated the principles of governance in the Church, the problem for Bishop Carroll was that the very concept, typical in denominational churches, was taken for granted in such a Protestant nation.

In challenging trusteeism, therefore, and in laying the groundwork for its ultimate riddance in the mid-nineteenth century, Carroll was implicitly challenging Protestants. This eventually successful effort, however, accomplished two objectives, which today provide modern-day lessons for bishops and the laity, respectively.

First, Carroll’s defeat of trusteeism secured his own, and all bishops’, authority over the Church and lay Catholics. Never shying away from his obligation as shepherd, Carroll cemented a Church hierarchy in early America that would lead to a collective voice among all American bishops in future generations.
Today, finding such a collective voice among American bishops has been difficult. Even when scores of bishops have spoken clearly on the same issue, such as Catholics’ obligations to vote pro-life, their leadership has had a minimal impact, no doubt the result of an insidious pluralism, internal to the Church, which Carroll would abhor.

Second, Carroll’s efforts against trusteeism altered the way lay Catholics viewed their faith—and, in particular, the application of their faith to the public square. The same type of faith compartmentalization that confounded Bishop Carroll has reared its head in a slew of high-profile, recent events involving Catholics. Simply put, the lack of civic engagement by Catholics, as Catholics , endangers our republic.

A modern Church leader in the vein of John Carroll, Archbishop Charles Chaput, focused on this point in his recent book Render unto Caesar . Chaput concludes, “American political life, though very practical, depends on ideas and beliefs that are large and long-term; that are not built low to the ground; that need a citizenry with right moral character in order to work.” John Carroll laid the groundwork for future Catholics to be at the vanguard of those lofty ideas, but too few of us have taken that civic and moral duty seriously.

Nearing his death in 1815, Archbishop John Carroll seemed to recall the irony of his consecration of the Feast of the Assumption twenty-five years earlier: “Of those things that give me most consolation at the present moment, one is that I have always been attached to the practice of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary; that I have established it among the people under my care, and placed my diocese under her protection.” May we Catholics pray and work for a fidelity to the Church, through Our Lady, that honors and perpetuates the efforts of our first American bishop.